ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in 17 Products in South KoreaASBESTOS LITIGATION: Devoy's Widow Gets GBP500T in CompensationASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minn. Site Cleanup to Commence on August 24ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. DEP Issues NOV at Ambler Ex-Boiler Site

*********

AG-MART PRODUCE: Faces Farmworkers' Suits in Florida Over Wages---------------------------------------------------------------Ag-Mart Produce, Inc. is facing two purported class-actionlawsuits Florida that was filed by farmworkers who say they werecheated out of pay, Laura Layden of The Naples Daily Newsreports.

The Migrant Farmworker Justice Project, an advocate forfarmworker rights in Florida, filed the suits in June. Theselawsuits are seeking damages and relief for more than 1,000workers, who claim they were paid less than the minimum wagerequired by law for work they did during the past two seasons,according to The Naples Daily News.

Seven farmworkers are named plaintiffs in the two cases, whichwere both filed on June 18, 2009 in the U.S. District Court forthe Middle District of Florida.

The suit was filed on June 18, 2009 in the U.S. District Courtfor the Middle District of Florida by Andres Gonzalez-Gonzalez,Francisco Acevedo-Hernandez and Nicolas Vega-Camacho, under thecaption, "Gonzalez-Gonzalez et al v. Alta Citrus, LLC et al,Case No. 2:2009-cv-00388."

The case is a class-action brought by three farmworkers, whowere employed through the H-2A guest worker program. Thefarmworkers say that they were paid wages below what is requiredby the program and state law, according to The Naples DailyNews.

Earnings were based on a piece-rate and were routinely below theminimum wage, according to the lawsuit, reports The Naples DailyNews.

The suit was filed on Feb. 13, 2009 in the U.S. District Courtfor the District of Kansas by Amanda Brawner and Gynon Hamilton,under the caption, "Brawner et al v. Bank of America, N.A., CaseNo. 2:2009-cv-02073."

Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP and Donelon, P.C. recently filed alawsuit against Bank of America, N.A. on behalf of bank tellersand personal bankers for allegedly unpaid wages and overtimeworked at company bank branches across the country. The lawsuitwas filed as a collective action, which means that other Bank ofAmerica employees with similar job duties may join the case toseek their allegedly unpaid wages (Class Action Reporter, July13, 2009).

In the Complaint, the employees allege that Bank of Americafailed to pay bank tellers and personal bankers for overtimeworked. In particular, employees work more than forty hours ina work week, but instead of paying them overtime, Bank ofAmerica:

-- gives them "comp time,"

-- tells them not to record the hours worked over forty, and/or

-- lowers or "modifies" the tellers' and personal bankers' recorded hours by eliminating any overtime hours.

Also, the lawsuit alleges that Bank of America automaticallydeducts time for meal breaks; however, employees were routinelyrequired to perform work during unpaid meal breaks (or were notable to take such breaks).

The failure to pay employees their earned overtime wages is indirect violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). TheFLSA provides for recovery of unpaid overtime wages, an equalamount for liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and litigationcosts. Back wages can be sought over either a two- or three-yearperiod from the date the employee joins the case, depending onwhether the violation is deemed willful. Both present andformer employees of Bank of America, N.A. may participate in thecase.

The 22 migrant workers say that in the 2008-09 season they weredenied the proper record-keeping and wage statements required bylaw and that the grower routinely paid them less than minimumwage of $6.55 an hour, according to The Naples Daily News.

The class includes more than 200 workers, most of whom aren'tfluent in English and primarily come from Mexico and CentralAmerica, according to the lawsuit, reports The Naples DailyNews.

The plaintiffs in the case are former clients of brokers RebeccaEngle and Brian Schuster, who both have pleaded not guilty toeight felony counts of securities fraud. Several lawsuits andarbitration claims have been filed against them and their formeremployers accusing Ms. Engle and Mr. Schuster of improperlyselling risky investments, according to The Associated Press.

Court documents filed in the lawsuits and criminal complaintssay investors were defrauded out of at least $20 million.

Most of the investors involved in the arbitration or lawsuitswanted conservative, stable investments with little risk becausethey were nearing retirement age or were already retired whenthey got involved with Ms. Engle and Mr. Schuster. They say thebrokers instead invested their money in high-risk enterprises inFlorida and never fully explained the risks, reports TheAssociated Press.

Ms. Engle and Mr. Schuster, a former Nebraska football player,worked together in Nebraska City at times between 2000 and 2007.The brokers were affiliated with at least three differentcompanies -- Capital Growth Financial LLC, Wachovia SecuritiesLLC and VSR Financial Services Inc. -- during those years.

The settlement that gained preliminary approval On July 21, 2009is between the investors and Capital Growth along with two ofthe firm's former executives, Alan and Michael Jacobs, TheAssociated Press reported.

The settlement terms were listed as confidential in U.S.District Court in Nebraska. But a copy of the settlement wasfiled in a related case in Florida, where Capital Growth wastrying to collect from its insurer, Quanta Specialty LinesInsurance Co.

According to those court documents, obtained by The AssociatedPress, Quanta will pay $646,160 to the class-action plaintiffsand another $93,840 to a specific investor who won anarbitration claim against Capital Growth. Separately, theJacobses will pay $170,000 in a different arbitration claim.

Quanta also agreed to pay $230,000 in legal fees related to thedefense of Capital Growth and the Jacobses.

This settlement does not represent the end of the case becauseseveral other defendants in the class-action lawsuit have notsettled or admitted wrongdoing. And resolving some of thelawsuits or arbitration claims only generates additionallitigation, according to The Associated Press.

CROUSE HOSPITAL: Faces N.Y. FLSA Litigation Over Overtime Pay-------------------------------------------------------------Crouse Hospital in Syracuse, New York is facing a purportedclass-action lawsuit, which claims that employees at thehospital are owed overtime pay for working through their lunchbreaks, The Associated Press reports.

The suit was filed on Nov. 13, 2008 in the U.S. District Courtfor the Northern District of New York by Michele Fengler andMarianne Meyers, under the caption, "Fengler et al v. CrouseHealth Foundation, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:2008-cv-01221." Itgenerally alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In general, the suit claims that the hospital has practices andpolicies that automatically deduct hourly workers' lunch breaksfrom their pay, even when they work during those breaks caringfor patients, according to AP.

Joleen Ferris of WKTV reported that the suit was filed by DawnHamelin, Julie Flint, and Rakiesha Griffin in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Northern District of New York on Nov. 13, 2008.It was brought on behalf of 89 current and former employees ofthe healthcare provider (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 17, 2008).

The defendants, on April 16, 2008, filed a motion to dismiss thecomplaint.

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was thereafter granted and anOrder was entered dismissing the Amended Complaint withoutprejudice on Nove. 18, 2008. Plaintiffs filed a Second AmendedComplaint on Jan. 9, 2009. Defendants Motion to Dismiss theSecond Amended Complaint was filed on Feb. 27, 2009, and remainspending, according to the company's May 13, 2009 Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended March 31, 2009.

Gaming Partners International Corp. -- http://www.gpigaming.com/-- manufactures and supplies casino table game equipment. TheCompany's business activities include the manufacture and/orsupply of gaming chips, table layouts, wheels, playing cards,dice, gaming furniture and miscellaneous table accessories,which are used in conjunction with casino table games, such asblackjack, poker, baccarat, craps and roulette. It has threesubsidiaries: Gaming Partners International USA, Inc. (GPI USA),Gaming Partners International SAS (GPI SAS) and GPI MexicanaS.A. de C.V. (GPI Mexicana). GPIC's products are sold tolicensed casinos primarily in the United States and Canada,under the brand names Paulson, Bourgogne et Grasset (B&G), BudJones and T-K. The Company has existing production facilitiesin Las Vegas, Nevada; San Luis Rio Colorado, Mexico, and Beaune,France.

GOOGLE INC: Plaintiffs Agree to Trim Claims in AdWords Lawsuit--------------------------------------------------------------Google Inc. and the plaintiffs in a putative class-action suitover the Internet giant's popular AdWords program have struck adeal to end unjust enrichment claims against Google in exchangefor the company's agreement to drop a breach of contractcounterclaim, Law360 reports.

Judge James Ware of the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of California signed off on the deal on July 15, 2009,according to Law360.

KADANT INC: Appeal to Dismissal of Consumer Fraud Suit Pending--------------------------------------------------------------The plaintiffs' appeal to the dismissal of a purported class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of a putative class of consumerswho purchased defective decking and railing productsmanufactured by Kadant, Inc.'s discontinued operation.

Specifically, the company was named as a co-defendant in aconsumer class action suit brought by Terrence Fisher, JosephJennings, Paula Moore, and Larry Boylen on behalf of a putativeclass of individuals who own GeoDeck(TM) decking or railingproducts manufactured by Composites LLC between April 2002 andOctober 2003.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for theDistrict of Massachusetts, under Docket Number 1:07-CV-12375-JLT, on Dec. 27, 2007, and notice was served on the company onJan. 7, 2008. Other defendants named in the suit are KadantComposites LLC and Liberty Diversified Industries, Inc.

The complaint in this matter purports to assert, among otherthings, causes of action for unfair and deceptive tradepractices, fraud, negligence, breach of warranty and unjustenrichment, and it seeks unspecified compensatory damages andpunitive damages under various state consumer protectionstatutes. The plaintiffs claim that damages exceed $50 million.

On March 14, 2008, the company and its co-defendants filedmotions to dismiss all counts in the complaint.

On Nov. 19, 2008, the Court dismissed the complaint in itsentirety, including all claims against the company, CompositesLLC, and the other co-defendant.

On Dec. 4, 2008, the plaintiffs sought to vacate this order ofdismissal in order to amend their complaint, and this motion wasdenied without prejudice by the Court on Jan. 12, 2009.

On Jan. 27, 2009, the plaintiffs renewed their motion to vacatethe order of dismissal in order to amend their complaint, whichmotion was opposed by the company on Feb. 10, 2009 and denied bythe Court on March 3, 2009.

On March 27, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended notice ofappeal, clarifying an earlier notice and seeking to challengethe Court's dismissal on Nov. 19, 2008 and the Court's denial onMarch 3, 2009.

On April 16, 2009, the Court formally opened the plaintiffsappeal and on April 23, 2009, the defendants moved to dismiss asuntimely that portion of the plaintiffs appeal seeking tochallenge the Nov. 19, 2008 dismissal. The Court has yet toschedule a hearing on the plaintiffs' appeal or defendants'partial motion to dismiss, according to Kadant's May 13, 2009Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended April 4, 2009..

MEDIS TECHNOLOGIES: Second Circuit Affirms Nixing of N.Y. Suit-------------------------------------------------------------- Medis Technologies Ltd. (Nasdaq: MDTL) announced that theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmedthe Southern District of New York's dismissal of the putativeclass action initiated against Medis and its former CEO, amongothers. Judge Paul A. Crotty of the Southern District of NewYork had dismissed the case captioned, "Medis Investor Group v.Medis Technologies Ltd. on August 18, 2008."

Medis had vigorously denied any allegations of wrongdoing,and is gratified by the Second Circuit's decision.

Medis Technologies Ltd. -- http://www.medistechnologies.com-- headquartered in New York, is the first company in the world tomarket a personal and portable liquid fuel cell capable ofproviding electrical power to the mobile electronicsmarketplace. The Medis fuel cell features a patented,proprietary fuel formulation that utilizes borohydride togenerate electricity upon activation; it is safe, clean, silent,and recyclable. First generation products include the Medis 24-7 Power Pack; 24-7 Xtreme Portable Power Solution; and the MedisFuel Cell Power Emergency Kit.

The class-action consumer fraud lawsuit, which is beingfiled July 22 in Superior Court in Essex County, seeks to compelall five companies to place cancer-risk warning labels on hotdog packages sold in New Jersey. The labels would read "Warning:Consuming hot dogs and other processed meats increases the riskof cancer."

The nonprofit Cancer Project is filing the suit on behalfof John O'Donnell, Ruthann Hilland, and Michele DeScisciolo, whopurchased hot dogs made by the companies without being madeaware that processed meat products are a cause of colorectalcancer.

The lawsuit is based on the findings of a landmark reportfrom the American Institute for Cancer Research, based on 58separate scientific studies, showing that just one 50-gramserving of processed meat (about the amount in one hot dog)consumed daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer, onaverage, by 21 percent. Every year, about 150,000 Americans arediagnosed with colorectal cancer; approximately 50,000 die ofit.

In March, the National Cancer Institute published a studyof more than half a million people showing that red andprocessed meat intake is associated with a higher risk of dyingfrom cancer and cardiovascular disease.

NCAA: Hausfeld LLP Sues on Behalf of Former Student Athletes------------------------------------------------------------ Hausfeld LLP announced the filing of a federal class actionlawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association(NCAA) on behalf of former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon anda class of thousands of former NCAA Division I men's basketballand football players.

The Complaint, filed in the United States District Courtfor the Northern District of California, alleges that the NCAAhas illegally deprived former student-athletes from receivingany compensation for the use of their images and likenesses innumerous revenue-generating formats, including DVD sales andrentals, photograph sales, video games, "stock footage" clipssold to corporate advertisers, jersey and other apparel sales,and rebroadcasts of "classic" games.

Class representative Ed O'Bannon was named the MostOutstanding Player in the 1995 NCAA basketball tournament, inwhich he led his team to the national championship. Mr.O'Bannon's image is currently utilized in numerous DVDs andphotographs offered for sale and rental by the NCAA and itsbusiness partners, in stock footage available for sale tocorporate advertisers, and in a basketball video-game licensedby the NCAA. Mr. O'Bannon's games also appear on television aspart of the rebroadcast of "classic" games.

"College sports has become a multi-billion dollar businessdue to thousands of former student-athletes like myself. I'mparticipating in this case to stand up on behalf of all formerplayers who have been treated unfairly," said Mr. O'Bannon. "Itis not about personal gain for me, but a matter of basicfairness."

The Complaint seeks injunctive relief that will enjoin theNCAA from its alleged anticompetitive practices and protectstudents in the future. Plaintiffs also seek damages for allthose former Division I men's basketball and football playerswhose images have been licensed or sold by Defendants, their co-conspirators, and/or their licensees in the last four years.

"No one has a right to own or control another person'simage or likeness for eternity without providing faircompensation," said Michael D. Hausfeld, Chairman of HausfeldLLP. "Former student athletes should have a voice in how theirown images or likenesses -- once they are no longer students --are used throughout their lifetime."

The company is named in two class action lawsuits, in Floridaand California, involving these allegations.

In one of these matters, the company has received a SummaryJudgment on its Motion to Dismiss related to a number of theallegations made in the original complaint.

The company has accrued for the related costs through purchaseaccounting in the amount of $0.275 million in connection withthese matters, according to the company's May 12, 2009 Form 10-Qfiled with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended March 31, 2009.

New York-based New Motion, Inc. -- http://www.atrinsic.com/-- doing business as Atrinsic, Inc., is a digital advertising andentertainment network in the United States. Atrinsic isorganized around two divisions: Networks, which offers serviceonline marketing and distribution, and Entertainment that offersits content direct to users.

SEARS HOLDINGS: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation----------------------------------------------------------------Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for theSouthern District of New York dismissed a putative class-actionlawsuit by Kmart Corp. shareholders for failing to back upallegations that top officers of the big box retailer -- nowpart of Sears Holding Corp. -- concealed the true value of thecompany's real estate assets, suppressing the company's stockprice, Law360 reports.

In May and July 2006, two putative class action complaints --each naming as defendants Sears Holdings Corp. and Edward S.Lampert -- were filed before U.S. District Court for theSouthern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of a classof persons that sold shares of Kmart Holding Corp. stock on orafter May 6, 2003, through June 4, 2004.

Sears, Roebuck and Co. merged with Kmart which resulted in the2004 formation of Sears Holdings.

The plaintiffs in each case allege that Kmart's Plan ofReorganization and Disclosure Statement filed on Jan. 24, 2003,which was amended on Feb. 25, 2003, misrepresented Kmart'sassets, particularly its real estate holdings, as evidenced bythe prices at which Kmart subsequently sold certain of itsstores in June 2004 to Home Depot and Sears.

The plaintiffs seek damages for alleged misrepresentations.

On Dec. 19, 2006, the Court consolidated the two suits and aconsolidated complaint was later filed.

On April 15, 2008, the Court denied without prejudicedefendants' motion to dismiss. After taking some additionaldiscovery, defendants filed another motion to dismiss whichremains pending before the Court. On March 17, 2009, the Courtheard arguments on the pending motion. The parties await aruling, according to the company's May 29, 2009 Form 10-Q filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterended May 2, 2009.

The suit is "In re: Sears Holdings Corporation SecuritiesLitigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-04053-JES," filed in the U.S.District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge JohnE. Sprizzo, presiding.

SPARK NETWORKS: "Adelman" Lawsuit Dismissed in November 2008------------------------------------------------------------A purported class action suit filed against Spark Networks, PLC,which alleges violations of the California Dating Services Act,was dismissed in November 2008, according to the company's July21, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

On Nov. 14, 2003, Jason Adelman filed a nationwide class actioncomplaint against the company in the Los Angeles County SuperiorCourt based on an alleged violation of California Civil Codesection 1694 et seq., which regulates businesses that providedating services.

The complaint included allegations that the company is a datingservice as defined by the applicable statutes and, as an allegeddating service, the company is required to provide language incontracts that allow:

-- members to rescind their contracts within three days;

-- reimbursement of a portion of the contract price if the member dies during the term of the contract; and

-- members to cancel their contracts in the event of disability or relocation.

Causes of action include breach of applicable state and federallaws, fraudulent and deceptive business practices, breach ofcontract and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff sought remedies including declaratory relief,restitution, actual damages although not quantified, trebledamages and punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs.The case also sought to certify a nationwide class action basedon their complaints. Because it was a class action, it wasassigned to the Los Angeles Superior Court Complex LitigationProgram.

Mediation occurred in "Adelman" in 2004, but did not result in asettlement. A post-mediation status conference was held on July16, 2004. At that status conference, the court suggested thatthe parties agree to a bifurcation of the liability issue. Thepurpose of the bifurcation is to allow the court to determinewhether as a matter of law the California Dating Services Actapplies to the company.

In this way, if the court determines that the CDS Act isinapplicable, all further expenses associated with discovery andclass certification can be avoided.

The court has permitted limited discovery including documentrequests and interrogatories, the parties will each be permittedto take one deposition without further leave of the court, theparties will be allowed to designate expert witnesses, and thecourt will conduct a trial on the issue of the applicability ofthe CDS Act to the company's business in the spring of 2006.

Although some written discovery relating to the bifurcated trialhas been completed, depositions have not yet been completed. Asecond mediation occurred in "Adelman" on Feb. 10, 2006.

The mediation resumed soon afterward, but did not result in asettlement. The bifurcated trial on the issue of theapplicability of the CDS Act to the company's business in theAdelman action was set for Sept. 12, 2006.

On Aug. 8, 2006, the court granted the company's application tobifurcate the trial of the issue of actual injury or damages andset the trial for Aug. 17, 2006.

The court determined at the Bifurcated Damages Trial that Mr.Adelman did not suffer any actual injury or damages, thus Mr.Adelman's claims were dismissed and a judgment was entered toaward attorneys' fees and costs to the company.

On Jan. 31, 2007, the Court awarded the company $50,000 in legalfees.

The company filed an appeal of the attorneys' fees award inorder to seek an award of all of the attorneys' fees incurred inthis matter. Although the company agrees that the Courtproperly granted its Attorneys' Fees Motion, it believes thatthe Court should have awarded the company attorneys' fees in thefull amount it requested, approximately $390,000, and not theamount actually awarded, $50,000.

On March 20, 2008, the Appellate Court issued an Order VacatingSubmission in response to a letter dated March 17, 2008, fromthe Court of Appeals in which the Court asked to be briefed oncertain additional issues. Briefs were filed by both parties onApril 23, 2008.

The matter has been submitted to the Court for decision and thecompany expects a decision within July 2008 (Class ActionReporter, June 26, 2008).

On Aug. 13, 2008, the company and Mr. Adelman entered into aconfidential settlement and release agreement. On Nov. 3, 2008,the Court formally entered a dismissal of the entire action withprejudice pursuant to a stipulation by the parties.

ST. JOSEPH'S: Faces ERISA, FLSA Suit in N.Y. Over Overtime Pay--------------------------------------------------------------St. Joseph's Hospital Health Center in Syracuse, New York isfacing a purported class-action lawsuit, which claims thatemployees at the hospital are owed overtime pay for workingthrough their lunch breaks, The Associated Press reports.

The suit was filed on Nov. 13, 2008 in the U.S. District Courtfor the Northern District of New York by Robert Colozzi, TammyAiken and Christine Correia, under the caption, "Colozzi et alv. St. Joseph's Hospital Health Center et al, Case No. 5:2008-cv-01220." It generally alleges violations of the EmployeeRetirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 and the FairLabor Standards Act (FLSA).

In general, the suit claims that the hospital has practices andpolicies that automatically deduct hourly workers' lunch breaksfrom their pay, even when they work during those breaks caringfor patients, according to AP.

STATION CASINOS: Nevada Court Dismisses "Lukevich" Labor Lawsuit----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada dismissed amassive proposed class-action lawsuit against Station CasinosInc., alleging current and former Station employees are owedwages for unpaid hours they claimed to have worked, Steve Greenof The Las Vegas Sun reports.

In dismissing the lawsuit on July 16, 2009, Judge Larry Hicks ofthe U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada cited alittle-known jurisdictional rule for class-action lawsuits,according to The Las Vegas Sun.

The rule is called the "home-state controversy exception" andsays federal courts must decline jurisdiction in such cases whentwo-thirds or more of the members of the proposed class-action,and the primary defendants, are citizens of the state in whichthe lawsuit was filed, reports The Las Vegas Sun.

In this case, filed in 2008, the jurisdiction issue came up inMarch, court records show. Attorneys for Station Casinosasserted the home-state controversy argument and prevailed.That's because of the 20,219 people on the list of potentialclass-action plaintiffs, 18,899 have a Nevada address, The LasVegas Sun reported.

It was previously reported that the purported class-actioncomplaint against the company was initiated on Feb. 4, 2008, byformer Station Casinos employees Josh Luckevich, Cathy Scott andJulie St. Cyr (Class Action Reporter, July 14, 2009).

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification ofthe lawsuit, compensatory damages in excess of $5,000,000,punitive damages and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses tothe plaintiffs' counsel.

The company filed a response to the complaint on March 10, 2008.The parties are currently in the discovery process.

The company has yet to file a response to the complaint,according to the company's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "Josh Lukevich v. Station Casinos, Inc., Case No.2:08-cv-00141-LRH-LRL," filed in the U.S. District Court for theDistrict of Nevada, Judge Larry R. Hicks, presiding.

TRIBUNE CO: Del. Judge Denies Bid to Pursue Pay Discrepancy Case----------------------------------------------------------------A former Tribune Co. account executive, who claims she was firedfor complaining about alleged pay discrepancies and due to herage, has lost a bid to lift the automatic stay in the mediagiant's bankruptcy case to pursue a putative class-action suit,Law360 reports.

On July 21, 2009, Judge Kevin J. Carey of the U.S. BankruptcyCourt for the District of Delaware denied Jayne Clement'smotion, citing the plaintiff's failure to establish cause forrelief, according to Law360.

VELOCITY EXPRESS: Dec. 2009 Trial Set for Contractors' Lawsuit--------------------------------------------------------------A December 2009 trial is set for a purported class-action suitby independent contractors against Velocity Express Corp. andits subsidiary, CD&L Inc., according to the company's May 12,2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended March 28, 2009.

In connection with the CD&L acquisition, the company assumed thedefense of a class action suit filed in December 2003, in theSuperior Court of the State of California for the County of LosAngeles, seeking to certify a class of California basedindependent contractors from December 1999 to the present.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages for various employmentrelated claims, including, but not limited to overtime, minimumwage claims, and claims for unreimbursed business expenses.

CD&L filed an Answer to their Complaint on Jan. 2, 2004 denyingall allegations.

Plaintiff's motion for Class Certification was granted in partand denied in part on Jan. 28, 2007.

During the three and nine-months ended March 28, 2009, thecompany recorded benefits of approximately $0.5 million and $1.5million resulting from changes in the estimated settlementliability related to this matter.

Discovery on this matter is ongoing and a trial date has beenadjourned to December 2009.

Velocity Express Corp. -- http://www.velocityexp.com/-- together with its subsidiaries, is engaged in the business ofproviding time definite ground package delivery services.

Nine purported class-action lawsuits were filed against thecompany between December 2007 and July 2008.

These suits, which were filed by a very small group ofindependent contractor drivers in six different states, seekunspecified damages for various unsubstantiated employmentrelated claims.

In response to the proliferation of these cases, the company'soutside counsel filed a motion to have the cases consolidatedpursuant to federal multi-district litigation rules.

On Oct. 8, 2008, the U.S. Judicial Panel on MultidistrictLitigation granted the company's motion and ordered that thecases be consolidated for pretrial proceedings. The Panelordered that the cases be consolidated in the Eastern Districtof Wisconsin.

At this point, the cases have all been transferred to theEastern District of Wisconsin, for further proceedings in thatcourt.

A non-binding mediation of these cases took place on April 14,2009, and settlement discussions are ongoing. Unrelateddiscovery and motion practice is presently stayed.

Velocity has filed answers rejecting all employment basedallegations of the various complaints, according to thecompany's May 12, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 28, 2009.

Velocity Express Corp. -- http://www.velocityexp.com/-- together with its subsidiaries, is engaged in the business ofproviding time definite ground package delivery services.

VILLAGE OF BELLWOOD: Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in "Narducci"---------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed adistrict court's denial of the defendants' motion for summaryjudgment in the matter, "Narducci v. Bellwood, Vlg of, et al.Case No. 1:01-cv-01425," which names the mayor of Bellwood,Illinois, and its police chief as defendants, The CourthouseNews Service reports.

The suit was filed on Feb. 28, 2001 in the U.S. District Courtfor the Northern District of Illinois by former villagecomptroller Nicholas Narducci against Mayor Donald Lemm, PoliceChief Gregory Moore and other village officials, accusing themof surreptitiously recording phone calls from the village'sfinance department.

Mr. Narducci sued the officials under the U.S. Constitution anda federal wiretapping law, claiming the village should havenotified him and other finance employees when it began recordingfive finance department phone lines in 1994, according to TheCourthouse News Service.

The recording plan had been proposed by former comptroller JoeLagen, who was concerned about the growing number of threatsfrom angry residents whose water services had been turned off,usually for failure to pay utility bills.

Officials also thought the emergency recording system would helproot out abuse of village phones for personal calls and wouldshed light on complaints about finance department employeesbeing rude to callers.

A few years after Mr. Narducci replaced Mr. Lagen, he said helearned about the illegal recording scheme, reports TheCourthouse News Service.

The Courthouse News Service reported that Judge Milton I. Shadurof the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinoisdismissed the former comptroller's state-law claims and anyfederal constitutional claims involving calls made after Mr.Narducci learned about the recording in February 2000. However,Judge Shadur allowed the class-action case to proceed on theremaining illegal search and wiretap claims.

The defendants appealed, asserting their immunity to the class-action allegations.

However, the Chicago-based federal appeals court refused toreverse Judge Shadur's ruling. The court said, "Given that theallegations in this case include the recording of every phonecall, for at least a six-year period, with no notice to theaffected employees. Mr. Narducci has presented sufficientevidence of a violation of the Fourth Amendment to withstandsummary judgment." It added, the employees' privacy rights wereclearly established at the time, The Courthouse News Servicereports.

In addition, the court also dismissed the officials' motion forsummary judgment on the remaining wiretapping claims, sayingthey failed to raise that defense in their initial appeal,according to The Courthouse News Service.

"Lemm and Moore were the moving party for summary judgment; ifthey felt entitled to terminate the proceedings because ofqualified immunity, they were required to bring that issue tothe court's attention," according to the appeals court.

The court further said, "Finally, as the district court pointedout, the present case has been litigated since 2001, while themotions for summary judgment were submitted in 2006; five yearsis ample time for the defendants to develop the issue andpresent it in their initial motion."

WAL-MART STORES: Wash. Judge Approves $35M Litigation Settlement---------------------------------------------------------------- King County Superior Court Judge Julie Spector grantedfinal approval on July 20, 2009 to $35 million settlement thatresolves a class action lawsuit brought in 2001 by Wal-MartStores, Inc. workers in Washington State who alleged they weredeprived of meal and rest breaks and worked off the clock atWalmart stores and Sam's Clubs.

"We are pleased that Judge Spector found the settlement isfair, adequate, and reasonable," notes Class Counsel BethTerrell of Seattle law firm Terrell Marshall & Daudt PLLC. Thesettlement provides for monetary compensation and injunctiverelief. The injunctive relief benefits all employees byrequiring Walmart to continue to take steps to prevent wage andhour violations at its 50 stores and clubs in Washington, stepsthat include the use of new technologies and compliance tools.As for monetary compensation, employees who fill out a simpleclaim form are eligible to receive a cash payment.

"We encourage all employees and former employees who havenot done so to fill out a claim form if they want a share of thesettlement proceeds. The claim form only takes a few minutes tofill out," states Rachel Geman of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &Bernstein LLP, Class Counsel. Ms. Terrell further notes that"Employees still have until August 19th to submit a claim formand both Class Counsel and a claims administrator are availableto help class members with any questions."

"This lawsuit was filed years ago and the allegations arenot representative of the company we are today," said DaphneMoore, Walmart spokesperson. "Our policy is to pay associatesfor every hour worked and to make rest and meal breaksavailable. This is a commitment we make to the more than 1.4million associates who choose to work for Walmart and serve ourcustomers and members every day. We have worked hard to havethe right communication, processes, and systems in place to helpensure we live up to this commitment."

WEST PUBLISHING: Judge Grants Attorney Fees in BAR/BRI Deal-----------------------------------------------------------Judge Manuel Real of the U.S. District Court for the CentralDistrict of California granted attorney fees to two law firmsthat objected to the $49 million settlement in an antitrustclass-action suit against West Publishing Corp. and Kaplan,Inc., the publisher of the BAR/BRI bar examination reviewcourse, Amanda Bronstad of The National Law Journal reports.

However, Judge Real, who originally had denied fees to theobjectors, granted significantly less than the attorneys hadrequested. He also refused to grant fees to several pro seobjectors, according to The National Law Journal.

On July 13, 2009, Judge Real granted $8,125 to John W. Davis ofthe Law Office of John W. Davis in San Diego, who representedeight objectors, and $16,250 to C. Benjamin Nutley of Kendrick &Nutley in Pasadena, Calif., who represented five objectors,reports The National Law Journal.

Mr. Davis had been seeking $42,655 in fees and $884 in costs;Mr. Nutley initially requested $108,000 in fees.

The judge's ruling was in connection to an issue that had beenremanded to his court by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals forthe Ninth Circuit.

The 2007 settlement came in a case filed on behalf of 300,000class members who claimed to have overpaid, on average, about$1,000 for BAR/BRI's bar review course because its parentcompany, West Publishing Corp., conspired to monopolize themarket in a deal with Kaplan Inc., which sells preparatorycourses for the Law School Aptitude Test, reports The NationalLaw Journal.

The class sought $300 million, triple the estimated antitrustdamages.

Before the settlement was finalized, several objectors raisedquestions about the incentive awards, valued at $25,000 to$75,000, that five of the seven class representatives were toreceive as part of the deal, The National Law Journal reported.

Matthew Hirsch of Law.com previously reported that U.S. DistrictJudge Manuel Real approved the $49 million settlement of theBAR/BRI class-action case on July 9, 2007 (Class ActionReporter, July 19, 2007).

However, the judge rejected the incentive awards. He alsorefused to grant attorney fees to the lawyers for the objectors.

In April 2009, the Ninth Circuit reversed Judge Real's decisionon the fees, concluding that the objectors' efforts in raisingthe incentive award issue deserved some relief of legal costs,according to The National Law Journal.

The appeals court specifically upheld a $49 million settlementin an antitrust class-action lawsuit against West PublishingCorp. and Kaplan, Inc. over test preparation courses for lawschool admissions and the bar exam, though the court hasreversed and remanded an order approving attorneys' fees for theplaintiffs' counsel. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the NinthCircuit issued it decision on April 23, 2009 (Class ActionReporter, April 28, 2009).

Case Background

The case was filed by former law students in California,Michigan and Louisiana, who had brought it on behalf of allpersons who purchased a bar review course from BAR/BRI BarReview from August 1997 (Class Action Reporter, July 17, 2006).

Specifically, the suit accuses defendant West Publishing, d/b/aBAR/BRI of violating the federal antitrust laws and conspiringwith Kaplan, Inc. to prevent competition in the market for full-service bar review courses. Kaplan is an international providerof educational and career services.

BAR/BRI provides bar review courses throughout the U.S. toassist would-be attorneys in their preparation for taking one ormore bar examinations required by each state and the District ofColumbia prior to the issuance of a license to practice law.

Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of defendants' conduct,consumers had to pay more for BAR/BRI bar review courses thanthey should have (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 19, 2007).

In early December 2006, the parties agreed to a settlement ofthe litigation. On Feb. 2, 2007, the parties filed a settlementagreement with the court together with documents setting forth aprocedure for class notice (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 29,2007).

Class members are all individuals who purchased a full-servicebar review course from BAR/BRI anywhere in the U.S. WhereBAR/BRI directly operated a course anytime from August 1997 upto the present time. Class members have until Sept. 17, 2007 tomake a claim. Objections are due May 21, 2007.

As a part of the settlement, defendants have agreed to establisha $49 million fund. The settlement also provides for other non-monetary relief. Class Members are eligible to obtain up to 30%of the total amount they paid for a bar review course from thefund.

The suit is "Ryan Rodriguez et al. v. West Publishing Corp. etal., Case No. 2:05-cv-03222-R-Mc," filed in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Central District of California under Judge ManuelL. Real with referral to Judge James W. McMahon.

YUM! BRANDS: August 11 Trial Set for "Archila" Lawsuit v. KFC-------------------------------------------------------------An Aug. 11, 2009 trial has been set for a putative class-actionsuit styled, "Kenny Archila v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc.," inCalifornia state court, according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s July21, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended June 13, 2009.

KFC removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the CentralDistrict of California on Jan. 7, 2009.

On July 7, 2009, the Judge ruled that the case will not goforward as a class action. Plaintiff seeks recovery of civilpenalties under the California Private Attorney General Act as arepresentative of other "aggrieved employees." Discovery is nowcomplete, and a trial date has been set for Aug. 11, 2009.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100countries and territories. Through the five concepts of KFC,Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the companydevelops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide systemof restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of fooditems. In all five of its Concepts, the company either operatesunits or they are operated by independent franchisees orlicensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests inUnconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.

On Dec. 17, 2002, Taco Bell was named as the defendant in theclass-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for theNorthern District of California.

On Aug.4, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint thatalleges, among other things, that Taco Bell has discriminatedagainst the class of people who use wheelchairs or scooters formobility by failing to make its approximately 220 company-ownedrestaurants in California (the "California Restaurants")accessible to the class.

The plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architecturaland structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating tothe path of travel and use of the facilities by persons withmobility-related disabilities do not comply with the U.S.Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Unruh Civil RightsAct (Unruh Act), and the California Disabled Persons Act (CDPA).

They have requested:

(a) an injunction from the District Court ordering Taco Bell to comply with the ADA and its implementing regulations;

(b) that the District Court declare Taco Bell in violation of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and

(c) monetary relief under the Unruh Act or CDPA.

The plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, are seeking the minimumstatutory damages per offense of either $4,000 under the UnruhAct or $1,000 under the CDPA for each aggrieved member of theclass. They contend that there may be in excess of 100,000individuals in the class.

On Feb. 23, 2004, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motionfor class certification. The District Court certified a Rule23(b)(2) mandatory injunctive relief class of all individualswith disabilities who use wheelchairs or electric scooters formobility who, at any time on or after Dec. 17, 2001, weredenied, or are currently being denied, on the basis ofdisability, the full and equal enjoyment of the CaliforniaRestaurants. The class includes claims for injunctive reliefand minimum statutory damages.

Pursuant to the parties' agreement, on or about Aug. 31, 2004,the District Court ordered that the trial of this action bebifurcated so that stage one will resolve plaintiffs' claims forequitable relief and stage two will resolve plaintiffs' claimsfor damages. The parties are currently proceeding with theequitable relief stage of this action.

On May 17, 2007, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' Motion forPartial Summary Judgment seeking judicial declaration that TacoBell was in violation of accessibility laws as to three specificissues: indoor seating, queue rails and door opening force. OnAug. 8, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part withregard to dining room seating. In addition, the court grantedplaintiffs' motion in part with regard to door opening force atsome restaurants (but not all) and denied the motion with regardto queue lines.

The parties participated in mediation on March 25, 2008, andagain on March 26, 2009, without reaching resolution. The courtgranted Taco Bell's request for an extension to file its motionfor summary judgment on the ADA claims until Oct. 20, 2009. Ahearing on the motion is scheduled for Dec. 16, 2009.

Taco Bell has taken certain steps to address potentialarchitectural and structural compliance issues at therestaurants in accordance with applicable state and federaldisability access laws, according to the company's July 21, 2009Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended June 13, 2009.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100countries and territories. Through the five concepts of KFC,Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the companydevelops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide systemof restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of fooditems. In all five of its Concepts, the company either operatesunits or they are operated by independent franchisees orlicensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests inUnconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.

On April 11, 2008, Lisa Hardiman filed a Private AttorneysGeneral Act ("PAGA") complaint in the Superior Court of theState of California, County of Fresno against Taco Bell Corp.,the company and other related entities.

On June 25, 2008, Hardiman filed an amended complaint addingclass-action allegations on behalf of hourly employees inCalifornia very similar to the Medlock case, includingallegations of unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest periods,improper wage statements, non-payment of wages upon termination,unreimbursed business expenses and unfair or unlawful businesspractices in violation of California Business & Professions CodeSection 17200.

On July 25, 2008, Taco Bell removed the case to the U.S.District Court for the Eastern District of California, andsubsequently filed a notice of related case.

On July 31, 2008, the case was transferred to the same judge asin the "Medlock" case. Taco Bell filed a motion to strike thePAGA claims.

Taco Bell moved to consolidate the Medlock, Hardiman, Leyva andNaranjo matters and the court granted the motion to consolidateon May 19, 2009. The consolidated case is styled In Re TacoBell Wage and Hour Actions. Plaintiffs filed a consolidatedcomplaint on June 29, 2009, and the court set a filing deadlineof Aug. 26, 2010, for motions regarding class certification.The hearing on any class certification motion is currentlyscheduled for January 2011. Discovery is underway.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100countries and territories. Through the five concepts of KFC,Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the companydevelops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide systemof restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of fooditems. In all five of its Concepts, the company either operatesunits or they are operated by independent franchisees orlicensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests inUnconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.

On June 16, 2008, the "Leyva" lawsuit against Taco Bell Corp.and the company was originally filed in Los Angeles SuperiorCourt.

The case was filed on behalf of Leyva and purportedly all otherCalifornia hourly employees and alleges failure to pay overtime,failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay wagesupon discharge, failure to provide itemized wage statements,unfair business practices and wrongful termination anddiscrimination.

This case is very similar to the "Medlock" case, accordingly, onJuly 3, 2008, Taco Bell filed a notice of related case.

The company was dismissed from the case without prejudice onAug. 20, 2008.

Taco Bell removed the case to federal court in Los Angeles onJan. 23, 2009. Plaintiff did not oppose removal, and theparties stipulated to transfer the case to the Eastern Districtof California, where the "Medlock" case is pending.

Taco Bell moved to consolidate the Medlock, Hardiman, Leyva andNaranjo matters and the court granted the motion to consolidateon May 19, 2009. The consolidated case is styled In Re TacoBell Wage and Hour Actions. Plaintiffs filed a consolidatedcomplaint on June 29, 2009, and the court set a filing deadlineof Aug. 26, 2010, for motions regarding class certification.The hearing on any class certification motion is currentlyscheduled for January 2011. Discovery is underway.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100countries and territories. Through the five concepts of KFC,Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the companydevelops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide systemof restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of fooditems. In all five of its Concepts, the company either operatesunits or they are operated by independent franchisees orlicensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests inUnconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.

On Sept. 10, 2007, a putative class action against Taco BellCorp., the company and other related entities styled, "SandrikaMedlock v. Taco Bell Corp.," was filed in U.S. District Court,Eastern District, Fresno, California.

The case was filed on behalf of all hourly employees who haveworked for the defendants within the last four years and allegesnumerous violations of California labor laws including unpaidovertime, failure to pay wages on termination, denial of mealand rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid businessexpenses and unfair or unlawful business practices in violationof California Business & Professions Code Section 17200.

The company was dismissed from the case without prejudice onJan. 10, 2008.

On March 24, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file asecond amended complaint adding a nationwide FLSA claim forunpaid overtime. Taco Bell opposed the motion and on June 10,2008, the court denied plaintiff's motion to amend.

Taco Bell moved to consolidate the Medlock, Hardiman, Leyva andNaranjo matters and the court granted the motion to consolidateon May 19, 2009. The consolidated case is styled In Re TacoBell Wage and Hour Actions. Plaintiffs filed a consolidatedcomplaint on June 29, 2009, and the court set a filing deadlineof Aug. 26, 2010, for motions regarding class certification.The hearing on any class certification motion is currentlyscheduled for January 2011. Discovery is underway.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100countries and territories. Through the five concepts of KFC,Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the companydevelops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide systemof restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of fooditems. In all five of its Concepts, the company either operatesunits or they are operated by independent franchisees orlicensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests inUnconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.

On Nov. 5, 2008, a putative class-action lawsuit against TacoBell Corp. and the company was filed in Orange County SuperiorCourt.

The case was filed on behalf of Naranjo and purportedly allother California employees and alleges failure to pay overtime,failure to reimburse for business related expenses, improperwage statements, failure to pay accrued vacation wages, failureto pay minimum wage and unfair business practices.

Taco Bell removed the case to federal court on Dec. 5, 2008.

Plaintiffs did not oppose removal and agreed to transfer thecase to the Eastern District of California, where the "Medlock"case is pending.

The company filed a motion to dismiss on Dec. 15, 2008, whichwas denied on Jan. 20, 2009.

Taco Bell moved to consolidate the Medlock, Hardiman, Leyva andNaranjo matters and the court granted the motion to consolidateon May 19, 2009. The consolidated case is styled In Re TacoBell Wage and Hour Actions. Plaintiffs filed a consolidatedcomplaint on June 29, 2009, and the court set a filing deadlineof Aug. 26, 2010, for motions regarding class certification.The hearing on any class certification motion is currentlyscheduled for January 2011. Discovery is underway.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100countries and territories. Through the five concepts of KFC,Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the companydevelops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide systemof restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of fooditems. In all five of its Concepts, the company either operatesunits or they are operated by independent franchisees orlicensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests inUnconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.

YUM! BRANDS: Nov. 2009 Arbitration Set for Restitution Liability----------------------------------------------------------------A November 2009 arbitration has been set for liability during aportion of the alleged restitution policy period in a putativeclass action on behalf of general and assistant restaurantmanagers of YUM! Brands, Inc.'s LJS concept.

On Nov. 26, 2001, Kevin Johnson, a former LJS restaurantmanager, filed a collective action against LJS in the U.S.District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee allegingviolation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") on behalf ofhimself and allegedly similarly-situated LJS general andassistant restaurant managers.

Mr. Johnson alleged that LJS violated the FLSA by perpetrating apolicy and practice of seeking monetary restitution from LJSemployees, including Restaurant General Managers ("RGMs") andAssistant Restaurant General Managers ("ARGMs"), when monetaryor property losses occurred due to knowing and willfulviolations of LJS policies that resulted in losses of companyfunds or property, and that LJS had thus improperly classifiedits RGMs and ARGMs as exempt from overtime pay under the FLSA.

LJS moved the Tennessee district court to compel arbitration ofMr. Johnson's suit. The district court granted LJS's motion onJune 7, 2004, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the SixthCircuit affirmed on July 5, 2005.

On Dec. 19, 2003, while the arbitrability of Mr. Johnson'sclaims was being litigated, former LJS managers Erin Cole andNick Kaufman, represented by Mr. Johnson's counsel, initiated anarbitration with the American Arbitration Association ("AAA")(the "Cole Arbitration"). The Cole Claimants sought acollective arbitration on behalf of the same putative class asalleged in the Johnson lawsuit and alleged the same underlyingclaims.

On June 15, 2004, the arbitrator in the Cole Arbitration issueda Clause Construction Award, finding that LJS's DisputeResolution Policy did not prohibit Claimants from proceeding ona collective or class basis. LJS moved unsuccessfully to vacatethe Clause Construction Award in federal district court in SouthCarolina. On Sept. 19, 2005, the arbitrator issued a ClassDetermination Award, finding, inter alia, that a class would becertified in the Cole Arbitration on an "opt-out" basis, ratherthan as an "opt-in" collective action as specified by the FLSA.

On Jan. 20, 2006, the district court denied LJS's motion tovacate the Class Determination Award and the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court'sdecision on Jan. 28, 2008. A petition for a writ of certiorarifiled in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a review of the FourthCircuit's decision was denied on Oct. 7, 2008.

The parties participated in mediation on April 24, 2008, andagain on Feb. 28, 2009, without reaching resolution.Arbitration on liability during a portion of the allegedrestitution policy period is currently scheduled for November2009.

LJS expects, based on the rulings issued to date in this matter,that the Cole Arbitration will more likely than not proceed asan "opt-out" class action, rather than as an "opt-in" collectiveaction. LJS denies liability and is defending the claims in theCole Arbitration, according to the company's July 21, 2009 Form10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forthe quarter ended June 13, 2009.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100countries and territories. Through the five concepts of KFC,Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the companydevelops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide systemof restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of fooditems. In all five of its Concepts, the company either operatesunits or they are operated by independent franchisees orlicensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests inUnconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.

YUM! BRANDS: Sept. 25 Hearing Set for Calif. RGMs Certification---------------------------------------------------------------A hearing on plaintiffs' class certification motion in theputative class action lawsuits filed on behalf of all currentand former Restaurant General Managers ("RGMs") against TacoBell Corp., a concept owned and operated by YUM! Brands, Inc.,has been continued to Sept. 25, 2009.

Both lawsuits were filed by a Taco Bell RGM purporting torepresent all current and former RGMs who worked at corporate-owned restaurants in California from August 2002, to thepresent.

The lawsuits allege violations of California's wage and hourlaws involving unpaid overtime and meal period violations andseek unspecified amounts in damages and penalties.

As of Sept. 7, 2006, both cases have been consolidated in SanDiego County. Discovery is underway.

Based on plaintiffs' revised class definition in their classcertification motion, Taco Bell removed the case to federalcourt in San Diego on Aug. 29, 2008. Plaintiffs have sought toremand the case back to state court and the court took thematter under submission without a hearing on Nov. 17, 2008.

On March 17, 2009, the court granted plaintiffs' motion toremand. A hearing on plaintiffs' class certification motion hasbeen continued to Sept. 25, 2009, according to YUM! Brands,Inc.'s July 21, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 13, 2009.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100countries and territories. Through the five concepts of KFC,Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the companydevelops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide systemof restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of fooditems. In all five of its Concepts, the company either operatesunits or they are operated by independent franchisees orlicensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests inUnconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.

On March 26, 2009, Taco Bell was served with the putative classaction lawsuit filed in Orange County Superior Court againstTaco Bell and the Company.

The case was filed on behalf of Widjaja, a former Californiahourly assistant manager, and purportedly all other individualsemployed in Taco Bell's California restaurants as managers andalleges failure to reimburse for business related expenses,failure to provide rest periods, unfair business practices andconversion.

Taco Bell removed the case to federal district court and filed anotice of related case.

On June 18, 2009, the case was transferred to the EasternDistrict of California where the In Re Taco Bell Wage and HourActions case is pending and was subsequently transferred to thesame district court judge.

Taco Bell requested that the court consolidate this case withthe In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions, and the courtdeferred its decision pending a noticed motion.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100countries and territories. Through the five concepts of KFC,Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the companydevelops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide systemof restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of fooditems. In all five of its Concepts, the company either operatesunits or they are operated by independent franchisees orlicensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests inUnconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.

New Securities Fraud Cases

ACCURAY INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit-------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that aclass action has been commenced on behalf of an institutionalinvestor in the United States District Court for the NorthernDistrict of California on behalf of purchasers of Accuray Inc.NASDAQ: ARAY) common stock pursuant or traceable to theCompany's Initial Public Offering on or about February 7, 2007,as well as purchasers of the Company's common stock betweenFebruary 7, 2007 and August 19, 2008, inclusive, seeking topursue remedies under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of theSecurities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint charges Accuray and certain of its officersand directors with violations of the Securities Act and theExchange Act.

Accuray designs, develops, and sells the CyberKnife system,an image-guided robotic radio surgery system for the treatmentof solid tumors. The CyberKnife system combines continuousimage-guidance technology with a compact linear accelerator todeliver high doses of radiation to a tumor from differentdirections.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period,defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose materialinformation concerning the quality and realistic likelihood offulfillment of contracts in Accuray's "backlog," a figurerepresenting the direct revenue that Accuray expects to receivefrom the sale and servicing of the CyberKnife system.

-- at the time of Accuray's IPO, Accuray changed its definition of backlog to include both contingent and non-contingent contracts;

-- beginning in the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2007 (at the time of the IPO), Accuray would report backlog that consisted of both contingent and non-contingent backlog, thereby increasing the total reported backlog;

-- defendants materially overstated the amount of the Company's backlog;

-- Accuray reported as backlog orders for the CyberKnife system that did not have a substantially high probability of being booked as revenue;

-- a significant portion of commissions paid to CyberKnife sales personnel were earned prior to those potential sales being booked as revenue;

-- Accuray sales personnel entered into contingent contracts for CyberKnife systems that did not have a substantially high probability of being booked as revenue;

-- Accuray did not have adequate internal controls and procedures to ensure that potential orders reported as backlog had a substantially high probability of being booked as revenue; and

-- based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company, its backlog, earnings, operations and prospects.

On August 19, 2008, Accuray announced its fiscal fourthquarter and full year 2008 financial results for the periodended June 28, 2008 in a press release titled "Accuray AnnouncesResults for the Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year End 2008; 28 NewContracts Valued at $115.5 Million Signed in Fourth Quarter."That same day, Accuray held a conference call with analysts andreiterated the financial results in the press release andrevealed that Accuray removed another $39 million from backlog.Thus, Accuray removed approximately $127 million in backlogduring the last three quarters of fiscal 2008.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of allpurchasers of Accuray common stock during the Class Period, aswell as purchasers of Accuray common stock pursuant and/ortraceable to the IPO on or about February 7, 2007.

CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Brower Piven Announces Stock Suit Filing--------------------------------------------------------------- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that aclass action lawsuit has been commenced in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf ofpurchasers of the securities of Caraco PharmaceuticalLaboratories, Ltd. (AMEX: CPD) during the period between May 29,2008 and June 25, 2009, inclusive.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company'sfailure to disclose during the Class Period that the Companyfailed to meet the United States Food and Drug Administration's("FDA") current Good Manufacturing Practice ("cGMP")requirements; that the Company failed to take correctivemeasures to have its manufacturing facilities comply with cGMPrequirements; that the Company failed to remedy known violationsof FDA regulations; that as a result of the foregoing theCompany's ability to secure FDA approval for pending drugapplications was jeopardized; and that as a further result ofthe above, the Company would have to recall certain products.

According to the complaint, on June 25, 2009, after the FDAannounced that U.S. Marshals had seized drug productsmanufactured by Caraco from the Company's facilities because ofthe Company's failure to comply with the FDA's cGMPrequirements, the value of Caraco's stock declinedsignificantly.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certaincriteria and be made on or before Sept. 15, 2009.

MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Brower Piven Announces Stock Suit Filing------------------------------------------------------------- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that aclass action lawsuit has been commenced in the United StatesDistrict Court for the District of Arizona on behalf ofpurchasers of the common stock of Matrixx Initiatives, Inc.(NASDAQ: MTXX) during the period between December 22, 2007 andJune 15, 2009, inclusive.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company'sfailure to disclose during the Class Period that Matrixx hadreceived notice of hundreds of serious adverse events regardingthe Zicam Cold Remedy Products; that Matrixx failed to reportthese incidents to the FDA despite having an obligation to doso; that the Company failed to comply with FDA regulationsdespite repeated assurances of its compliance; and that, as aresult of the foregoing, the Company's statements about itsmeeting FDA regulations were false and misleading when made.

According to the complaint, on June 15, 2009, after the FDAbanned the use of certain zinc-containing Zicam products, thevalue of Matrixx's stock declined significantly.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certaincriteria and be made on or before Sept. 15, 2009.

MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Kendall Law Group Announces Lawsuit Filing--------------------------------------------------------------- Kendall Law Group, led by a former federal judge and U.S.Attorney, announced that a securities class action was filedagainst Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. (NASDAQ: MTXX) on behalf ofinvestors who purchased stock at artificially inflated pricesbetween December 22, 2007 and June 15, 2009.

According to the complaint, filed in the United StatesDistrict Court for the District of Arizona, defendants failed todisclose that:

-- Matrixx had received notice of hundreds of serious adverse events involving consumers' use of the Zicam Cold Remedy Products;

On June 16, 2009, Matrixx disclosed that it had received awarning letter from the FDA and would withdraw its Zicam ColdRemedy Products from the market. On this news, the price ofMatrixx stock fell almost 70% on heavy trading volume.

By September 15, 2009, a Matrixx shareholder must move forlead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigationand participate in important decisions including whether toaccept a settlement and how much of a settlement to accept forthe Class in the action.

The complaint was filed in the United States District Courtfor the District of Arizona and seeks damages for violations ofthe federal securities laws on behalf of all investors whopurchased Matrixx stock between December 22, 2007 and June 15,2009, inclusive.

Matrixx is a nutrient and drug delivery company thatdevelops, manufactures and markets delivery systems forbioactive compounds. According to the complaint, defendantsfailed to disclose material adverse facts concerning thecompany's operational well being and future prospects.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failedto disclose or indicate:

-- that Matrixx had received notice of hundreds of serious adverse events involving consumers' use of the Zicam Cold Remedy Products;

-- that Matrixx failed to report these incidents to the FDA despite having an obligation to do so;

-- that Matrixx failed to comply with FDA regulations despite repeated assurances of its compliance; and

-- that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about meeting FDA regulations were false and misleading.

On June 16, 2009, Matrixx disclosed that it had received awarning letter from the FDA and would withdraw its Zicam ColdRemedy Products from the market. On this news, the price ofMatrixx stock fell roughly 70%.

TRONOX INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.---------------------------------------------------------------- On July 21, 2009, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLPfiled a class action lawsuit in the United States DistrictCourt, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all personswho purchased the common stock (Class A or B) of Tronox,Inc.[OTC:TRXAQ; OTC:TRXBQ] between November 29, 2005 and January12, 2009 against certain officers and directors of Tronox, Kerr-McGee Corporation, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, and certainofficers and directors of Kerr-McGee pursuant to Section 10(b)and 20(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and78t(a)] and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC [17C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5].

Kerr-McGee spun-off Tronox into an independent entity in atwo-step process. First, in November of 2005, Kerr-McGeegenerated $225 million in proceeds following the initial publicoffering of Tronox at the price of $14.00 per share and retainedcontrol of 56.7% of Tronox's outstanding common stock. Next, inMarch of 2006, Kerr-McGee distributed its remaining 56.7% stakein Tronox to shareholders as Class B shares by way of adividend.

The Complaint further alleges that defendants, at the timeof the IPO, knowingly mislead and misrepresented investors bymaterially understating the scope of Tronox's environmental andtort liabilities. The Registration Statement, and theprospectus therein, contained information that was materiallyfalse, misleading and ignored the adverse conditions facingTronox. As is explained in further detail in the Complaint,Tronox has put forth allegations in its bankruptcy action(Tronox, Inc. v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., et al.) that theRegistration Statement was materially misleading and greatlyunderstated the liabilities that Tronox was burdened with. TheDefendants continually misled investors throughout the ClassPeriod by making materially false statements and concealing thetrue nature of Tronox's liabilities in numerous press releasesand SEC filings.

On June 22, 2006, Anadarko made an offer seeking to acquireKerr-McGee for $18 billion, which included $16.4 billion incash. On August 10, 2006, the Kerr-McGee shareholders voted toapprove the offer and Kerr-McGee became a wholly-ownedsubsidiary of Anadarko, and as a result, Anadarko became thesuccessor-in-interest to Kerr-McGee.

Eventually, the market was able to uncover what theDefendants were attempting to conceal, Tronox's environmentaland tort liabilities were in far excess of what had beenrepresented, and, as a result, Tronox was in financial ruin andwould need to seek the protection of bankruptcy laws thereforerendering the stockholders' investments virtually worthless.

In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of thestatements described in the complaint, and the deceptive andmanipulative devices and contrivances employed by saiddefendants, plaintiff and the other members of the Class relied,to their detriment, on the integrity of the market price ofTronox common stock. Had plaintiff and the other members of theClass known the truth, they would not have purchased saidsecurities, or would not have purchased them at the inflatedprices that were paid.

A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certaincriteria and be made on or before Sept. 8, 2009.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Grants Ruling in Silta's Favor----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, upheld the ruling ofthe U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, whichreturned a verdict in favor of M.M. Silta, Inc., in a breach ofcontract action involving asbestos filed against Cliffs Erie,L.L.C. (Cliffs).

Silta brought this breach of contract action against Cliffs,alleging that Cliffs failed to perform its obligations under twoagreements stemming from reclamation of a Minnesota taconitemine.

Cliffs is a subsidiary of Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc., an iron oreproducer. In 2002, Cliffs began liquidating the assets of a HoytLakes, Minn., mine that it had purchased from a bankruptcompetitor.

Stephen DeVaney was charged with selling the equipment onCliffs' behalf. Melvin Silta, the owner and primary employee ofSilta, was a frequent customer of Mr. DeVaney's.

Between 2002 and 2006, Mr. Silta purchased hundreds of itemsfrom the mine, paying about US$3.5 million. Mr. Silta operated asalvage business, wherein he would purchase equipment and resellit for a profit.

The transaction giving rise to this appeal occurred in June2004. Mr. Silta approached Mr. DeVaney and proposed purchasing248 industrial circuit breakers that were located throughout themine and used for operating high voltage machinery. Mr. Siltawrote Cliffs a check for US$2,480 and Mr. DeVaney typed a salesinvoice stating that Silta had purchased 248 "MS 13 Asbestoscontaining breakers."

The breakers remained undisturbed and unnoticed until January2006, when Mr. DeVaney told Mr. Silta to remove his equipmentfrom the mine because of an impending sale of the property to athird party, PolyMet Mining, Corp. Later that month, Mr. Siltapresented his sales invoice and attempted to move the breakers,but Cliffs told Mr. Silta that the breakers had been sold toPolyMet, along with a mining facility that Polymet hadpurchased.

Cliffs thereafter sent Mr. Silta a US$2,480 refund check, whichhe refused, insisting that he wanted the breakers. Cliffscontinued to reject Mr. Silta's claim, arguing that he hadabandoned the breakers by not removing them at an earlier date.

By the time the case went to trial, both Mr. Silta and Cliffshad discovered that the breakers contained only a small quantityof non-friable asbestos that did not require abatement.

In addition, Mr. Silta introduced evidence that the breakers hadsubstantial value. He cited several trade journals indicatingthat similar breakers sold for between US$23,000 and US$65,000each, and he pointed to the fact that PolyMet was apparentlyusing the breakers to operate mining equipment at the Hoyt Lakesfacility.

Cliffs countered that Mr. Silta had abandoned the breakers byleaving them on Cliffs' property for 19 months. Alternatively,Cliffs argued that Mr. Silta's failure to abate the asbestos orremove the breakers was a material breach of contract thatexcused its own performance.

Cliffs also maintained that, if it had breached the agreement,the proper measure of Mr. Silta's damages was the scrap value ofthe breakers (about US$500 per breaker) because the parties hadnot contemplated that the breakers might be resold.

The jury concluded that Cliffs had breached the contract, and itawarded Mr. Silta US$27,500 for each of the 248 breakers. Thedistrict court denied Cliffs' post-trial motion for judgment asa matter of law, a new trial, and it added prejudgment interestof US$509,166.25, for a total judgment of US$7,329,166.25.

Before the Court were the motions in limine "Based Upon theVirginia Statute of Repose" filed by Defendants BondexInternational, Inc.; RPM Inc. and RPM International; andGeorgia-Pacific Corporation, on May 21, 2009, both adopted onthat same date by Defendant Union Carbide Corporation.

Ms. Anderson filed a timely response on June 10, 2009. Oralargument was heard upon the motions on June 16, 2009. Themotions asserted that Ms. Anderson's claims of exposure toasbestos during the construction of drywall partitions atvarious federal installations at which she worked from 1962 to1985 were barred by the Virginia statute of repose.

Defendants sought the entry of an Order precluding any evidenceof those exposures.

This case was initially filed in the Richmond Circuit Court onOct. 26, 2006, and was then removed to the U.S. District Courtfor the Eastern District of Virginia.

It was transferred to this Court on April 23, 2007 as part ofMultidistrict Litigation Docket 875. On June 17, 2009, JudgeEduardo C. Robreno, to whom MDL 875 is assigned, referred thecase to this court.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judgment for Caterpillar Upheld in Anderson----------------------------------------------------------------Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, affirmed the rulingof the King County Superior Court, which ruled in favor ofCaterpillar, Inc., in an asbestos case filed by Ruby J.Anderson.

On Aug. 11, 2008, the Appeal Court filed its original decisionin this case. There, the Appeal Court affirmed the trial court'ssummary dismissal of the claims against defendants LockheedShipbuilding Company and Todd Shipyards Corporation.

However, the Appeal Court reversed its order in limine at trialexcluding the theory of the case that Caterpillar had a duty towarn of the dangers of using asbestos insulation with theengines it manufactured. Thereafter, the Supreme Court grantedCaterpillar's petition for review and remanded this case to thiscourt for reconsideration.

Accordingly, the Appeal Court had reconsidered its originaldecision and now affirmed the judgment on the defense verdict attrial. Here, the trial court decided that Caterpillar had noduty to warn about asbestos insulation used with the engines itmanufactured.

Porter Hayden is a Maryland corporation that sold and installedindustrial insulation products containing asbestos fibers fromthe 1920s into the 1980s. In 1973, Porter Hayden ceased all ofits installation operations. However, it continued sellinginsulation materials and other products until 1982. PorterHayden purchased four comprehensive general liability (CGL)policies from National Union.

In December 2000, Porter Hayden brought a declaratory judgmentaction in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City seeking coveragefor tens of thousands of asbestos-related claims under twoinsurance policies issued by National Union covering the periodfrom April 1, 1984, to April 1, 1986.

In March 2002, while that suit was pending in state court,Porter Hayden filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of theU.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for theDistrict of Maryland. On June 30, 2006, the Bankruptcy Courtconfirmed Porter Hayden's Third Amended Second Modified Plan ofReorganization.

Porter Hayden moved for partial summary judgment for adeclaration that National Union's obligation to defend PorterHayden against policy holders' allegations of covered injuryduring a relevant policy period included paying for costsincurred in handling claims presented to the Porter HaydenAsbestos Bodily Injury Trust. National Union filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment.

Whitt owns real property and improvements located at 800/806Central Avenue, Middletown, Ohio. It obtained insurance policynumber 1CJ7894 from Essex for the Building. The Policy was infull force and effect from Feb. 16, 2007, through Feb. 16, 2008,and covered losses due to fire.

On or about May 26, 2007, a fire destroyed the Building. Whittnotified Essex and timely submitted claims for damage to theBuilding, debris removal, additional debris removal, andpollutant cleanup. Essex paid directly to Whitt, and to otherson its behalf, US$600,000 to cover the direct physical loss ofthe Building.

In addition, Essex tendered to Whitt a check in the amount ofUS$10,000 to discharge its obligations under the Policy's DebrisRemoval Additional Coverage provision. Whitt had not acceptedthe check in anticipation of the resolution of this litigation.

Whitt paid more than US$200,000 to remove debris and clean upand remove asbestos from the Building. Essex refused to coverWhitt's asbestos removal expenses and refused to pay more thanUS$10,000 for debris removal.

Whitt brought suit in Ohio state court alleging breach ofcontract and bad faith in Essex's refusal to cover the costs ofdebris removal and pollutant clean up in excess of theUS$600,000 Essex had paid and the US$10,000 Essex had proffered.

Whitt and Essex both filed their cross motions for summaryjudgment on Oct. 31, 2008.

Mr. Ransford is dying of mesothelioma he claimed was caused byasbestos encountered in 39 years of repairing and replacingbrakes on locomotives and rolling stock owned by the UnionPacific and Southern Pacific railroads.

For 15 of those 39 years, Mr. Ransford came into contact with atype of brake shoe containing asbestos that was manufactured byGriffin. Joined by his wife, Ora Myrtle Ransford, Mr. Ransfordfiled a complaint for damages against Griffin in August 2007.

The trial court granted Griffin's motion for summary judgmentafter concluding that "pursuant to the Locomotive BoilerInspection Act and the Safety Appliances Act, the plaintiffs'causes of action were preempted" by these federal statutes.

The summary judgment was affirmed.

Steven Marc Harowitz, Esq., of Harowitz & Tigerman in SanFrancisco, Ted W. Pelletier, Esq., of the Law Office of Ted W.Pelletier in San Anselmo, Calif., represented the Ransfords.

Mr. Roule, Executor of the Estate of his deceased wife Margaretand as her surviving spouse, brought the instant action againstLloyd Lumber claiming that Mrs. Roule was exposed to asbestos-containing products purchased from Lloyd causing her to developmesothelioma, and resulting in her death on or around April 11,2005.

Cargill, Inc. (successor to Lloyd Lumber) now moved for summaryjudgment arguing that the Roules had not produced any admissibleevidence showing exposure by Mrs. Roule to Lloyd asbestosproducts.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Court Reverses Ruling in Whipkey Case----------------------------------------------------------------The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,reversed the ruling of the Cuyahoga County Court of CommonPleas, which ruled in favor of William Whipkey and MarilynWhipkey in an asbestos case filed against General MotorsCorporation and Garlock Sealing Technologies (jointly"appellants").

GM and Garlock appealed the judgment of the lower court, findingthat R.C. 2307.93 cannot be retroactively applied to the lawsuitfiled by the Whipkeys. The Appeals Court reversed the ruling andremanded the case to the lower court.

Mr. Whipkey passed away in September 2007, but the action wasmaintained by Mrs. Whipkey.

On Feb. 9, 2004, the Whipkeys filed a complaint against variousdefendants, including GM and Garlock, alleging injury due toexposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured anddistributed by each defendant. More specifically, the Whipkeys'claim is based upon Mr. Whipkey's development of lung cancer.

In August 2005, GM moved to administratively dismiss theWhipkeys' lawsuit.

After a hearing in February 2006, the trial court denied GM'smotion, finding that the Whipkeys filed their complaint inFebruary 2004, which was prior to the effective date of H.B.292. Therefore, the court concluded that the case would proceedunder the law that was in effect prior to Sept. 2, 2004. It isfrom this order that GM and Garlock appealed.

The Whipkeys moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of finalappealable order. The Appeals Court granted the claimants'motion to dismiss in July 2006.

Appellants then appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, contendingthat the trial court's decision was a final appealable order.The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the matter, finding thatthe trial court's decision was a final appealable order.Appellants now appealed.

Judgment was hereby reversed and remanded. The case was remandedto the lower court for further proceedings.

The August 28 Order granted in part and denied in part AIUInsurance Company's motion to compel the production of documentslisted on TIG's privilege log as withheld on the basis of theattorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine.

TIG now moved for partial reconsideration over 25 of thedocuments, which Judge Pitman ordered produced.

AIU brought this action alleging breach of contract and seekingdeclaratory relief for TIG's failure to pay amounts due underfour reinsurance contracts. AIU issued four umbrella insurancepolicies to the Foster Wheeler Corporation and its affiliatescovering the period from Oct. 1, 1978 to Oct. 1, 1982. AIUsubsequently reinsured its exposure under the umbrella insurancepolicies with International Insurance Company, TIG's predecessorcompany, under the Reinsurance Contracts.

Foster Wheeler manufactures boilers and other steam-generatingand heat-exchange equipment and, since the late 1970s, it hasbeen the subject of thousands of asbestos-related personalinjury claims.

On Aug. 7, 2007, AIU sued TIG, alleging that TIG had breachedthe Reinsurance Contracts by failing to indemnify AIU for itsshare of the settlement payments.

On Nov. 12, 2007, AIU served its First Request for Production ofDocuments on TIG. On or about June 24, 2007, Judge Pitmandirected that the documents in issue be submitted to hischambers for in camera review.

After reviewing the documents in camera, Judge Pitman found thatmany of the documents were not privileged attorney-clientcommunications or attorney work-product and on August 28, JudgePitman issued an Order which directed the production of thesedocuments. TIG now moved for partial reconsideration withrespect to about 25 of the documents that Judge Pitman orderedproduced.

Accordingly, Judge Pitman's August 28 Order was hereby modifiedon reconsideration.

Appellant A-Best Products, Co. is one of 80 named defendants ina personal injury case involving claims of asbestos-relatedinjury filed in the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas.

The allegations included negligence, negligent installation,strict liability, breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment,and conspiracy. The particular ruling at issue in this appealgranted a motion filed by the Appellees requesting that the casebe set for trial and that the case be tried under the law as itexisted prior to the enactment of H.B. 292.

The Appellees argued that the retroactive application of H.B.292 was unconstitutional. The trial court granted the Appellees'motion. The court held that H.B. 292 was unconstitutionallyretroactive because it denied the Appellees a vested right.

The court ordered the case to proceed under common law standardsrather than the new statutory standards. This appeal followed.

The trial court also incorrectly found that Appellee JosephShary met his prima facie evidentiary burden. The judgment ofthe trial court was reversed and the case was remanded forfurther proceedings. The trial court was also ordered toadministratively dismiss, without prejudice, the claims of Mr.Shary.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Ind. Cites $514MM Settlement at June 30----------------------------------------------------------------PPG Industries, Inc.'s asbestos settlement (under currentliabilities) was US$514 million as of June 30, 2009, comparedwith US$613 million as of June 30, 2008, according to a Companyreport, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on July 16, 2009.

The Company's asbestos settlement (under current liabilities)was US$484 million as of March 31, 2009, compared with US$579million as of March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, April 24,2009)

The Company recorded US$3 million as net asbestos settlementduring the three months ended June 30, 2009, compared with US$4million during the three months ended June 30, 2008.

The Company recorded US$7 million as net asbestos settlementduring the six months ended June 30, 2009, compared with US$4million during the six months ended June 30, 2008.

Second quarter 2009 net income includes an aftertax charge ofUS$2 million, or US$0.02 per share, to reflect the net increasein the current value of the Company's obligation under itsproposed asbestos settlement, which is pending courtproceedings.

Reported second quarter 2008 net income included one-time,aftertax charges related to the Company's AG&S business of US$23million, or US$0.14 per share, and an aftertax charge of US$2million, or US$0.01 per share, for the proposed asbestossettlement.

Pittsburgh-based PPG Industries, Inc. supplies paints, coatings,optical products, specialty materials, chemicals, glass andfiber glass. The Company has more than 140 manufacturingfacilities and equity affiliates and operates in more than 60countries. Sales in 2008 were US$15.8 billion.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bristol Floor Layer Gets GBP70T in Payout----------------------------------------------------------------Cornelius Doherty, a 76-year-old former floor layer fromBristol, England, was GBP70,000 in compensation for his injuriesdeveloped after exposure to asbestos, the Evening Post reports.

When he was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2008, Mr. Doherty wastold he probably had 18 months to live and suffers pain everyday.

Mr. Doherty, who served with the Oxfordshire & BuckinghamshireLight Infantry in the 1950s, said he had friends who have diedas a result of exposure to asbestos. He said, "Asbestos wasthere but we did not know the damage it could do. Some of theapprentices used to make snowballs out of it. No one knew itcould harm us. We would not have done it if we had."

Mr. Doherty worked for Bedminster-based C W Jones Flooring Ltdon and off from 1963 to 2005 along with other companies in theBristol area that no longer exist. He also worked in building inNew Zealand. His case was brought against C W Jones Flooring,which remained the sole defendant.

Mr. Doherty was represented by Simon Allen, partner at RussellJones and Walker, who said that about 2,000 people die from thecancer in the UK every year and it is expected to peak in 2020.

The case was settled out of court three weeks before it was dueto be heard but the firm did not admit liability.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Ex-Handyman's Death Linked to Exposure----------------------------------------------------------------An inquest at Gloucester, England, ruled that the death ofPhillip Stanton was linked to exposure to workplace asbestos,this is Gloucestershire.co.uk reports.

The 72-year-old Mr. Stanton, a former laborer and handyman,worked for Ford and Weston and Hyett Builders, as well as manyother local companies, Gloucestershire deputy coroner DavidDooley was told.

Mr. Stanton died on March 26, 2009. His wife, Pamela Stanton,said her husband had worked at Gloster Saro in Brockworth whenHyett Builders had been carrying out work there. She said, "Hesaid he had to go into a boiler room where other men werewearing suits and masks to remove asbestos after the companyclosed, but he was not given any protection.

"He also worked at Gloucester Docks in buildings where therewere great clouds of dust and the debris had to be swept downfrom floor to floor.

"He retired at 69 and was very active. He was still riding hisbike until he started having breathing problems. He went toGloucestershire Royal Hospital where they found he had fluid onhis lungs. He was referred to Bristol Royal Infirmary and theyfound he had mesothelioma."

Dr. Dooley said that Gloster Saro made firefighting equipment,so there was likely to have been asbestos there.

In a statement made to his solicitors before he died, Mr.Stanton said until the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma, hehad no previous chest illnesses and was relatively fit for hisage enjoying a wide variety of activities. He detailed all theplaces he had worked in his life and the deputy coroner thoughthe would almost certainly have come into contact with asbestosin many of them.

Mr. Stanton said he had been aware of the dangers of asbestosexposure from the 1980s. He remembered working with powderyasbestos when contractors were removing it but he had to go intothe same boiler room with nothing but a mask.

Pathologist Dr. John McCarthy said the malignant mesothelioma(cancer) had affected one lung and the heart. Microscopicexamination showed asbestosis damage in the lung and a level ofasbestos fibers in a range of results where mesothelioma couldresult.

Dr. McCarthy added that Mr. Stanton had died of bronchialpneumonia caused by the mesothelioma and the death was relatedto asbestos exposure.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thurlby Resident's Death Linked to Exposure----------------------------------------------------------------An inquest heard that the death of 63-year-old drivinginstructor Trevor Alburey, of Thurlby by Bourne, England, waslinked to exposure to asbestos, the Evening Telegraph reports.

Mr. Alburey was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2008 and died athis home on April 9, 2009.

The inquest into Mr. Alburey's death at Stamford Town Hall heardthe only time he had been exposed to asbestos was when he was achild as his father worked with asbestos.

Mr. Alburey's wife, Jean, said when he was diagnosed with thedisease, they had tried to recall a time when he had worked withasbestos. She told the inquest, "He recalled that his fatherused to come home covered in white powder and play with him andhis sister."

A post-mortem examination found the cause of death to bepulmonary thromboembolism and bronchopneumonia.

Recording a verdict of accidental death, coroner Gordon Ryallsaid, "It was accidental because his father wasn't aware he waspassing the asbestos on. The speed at which the conditionprogressed to the diagnosis is quite normal but unfortunatelythere is no cure. It is a very unpleasant condition."

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scarborough Worker's Death Linked to Hazard----------------------------------------------------------------An inquest at Scarborough County Court heard that the death of78-year old James McBride, of Lythe, Scarborough, England, waslinked to exposure to asbestos, the Scarborough Evening Newsreports.

Mr. McBride had worked in the Merchant Navy and then for DormanLong Chemicals, in Teesside.

A statement written by Mr. McBride before he died was summarizedby coroner Michael Oakley at the inquest. It stated that Mr.McBride worked closely with asbestos during both jobs. Mr Oakleysaid, "He came into contact with asbestos when in the navy. Herefers to having to remove pipes that were lagged with asbestos.

"When he worked at Dorman Long Chemicals even in a moremanagement position he says he came into contact with asbestos."

A post mortem examination concluded that Mr. McBride died ofmesothelioma. Mr. Oakley recorded that Mr. McBride died fromindustrial disease.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln Hall in Illinois Slated for Cleanup----------------------------------------------------------------The Lincoln Hall of the University of Illinois in Urbana, Ill.,particularly the basement, is earmarked for asbestos abatement,Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center reports.

On July 13, 2009, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed off on agrant of US$57 million to be used for renovations. The grantmoney is part of a statewide capital improvement plan, which isfunded by taxes as well as online gambling.

The Lincoln Hall will benefit from this renovation money. Thelast renovation at the building was nearly 70 years ago.

Matthew Tomaszewski, the director of facilities and planning atthe University of Illinois, said, "You enter into the buildingand the first thing you see is the damage to the floor. It's atripping hazard."

The basement is filled with asbestos and aging pipes. Mr.Tomaszewski added, "I know it does seem like a joke, but this istrue. The students would come down the steps we just came downto find their academic advisor."

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Irish Harbor Cleanup to Cost Up to EUR300T----------------------------------------------------------------Asbestos abatement at the harbor in Dun Laoghaire, Ireland, willcost between EUR150,000 and EUR300,000 and will take about 10weeks to complete, Herald.ie reports.

The Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company (DLHC) plans to carry outworks which will see a number of old buildings containingasbestos removed. Specialized contractors will be required dueto the presence of asbestos.

Plans to develop the area around Carlisle Pier have been in thepipeline for some time but have been hit by a series of delays.It is not operational at the moment.

According to documents seen by the Herald, the current phasewill "comprise building demolition and site clearance within theboundary of Dun Laoghaire Harbour." However, extra care willhave to be taken because the works "will involve asbestosremoval and work in a maritime environment."

At present, the Harbour Company is looking for a suitable andexperienced contractor to carry out the work.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Probe on Illegal Dumping in Hawaii Ongoing----------------------------------------------------------------The investigation of the State Departments of Health andHawaiian Homelands into the illegal dumping of asbestos inWaianae, Hawaii, is ongoing, Mesothelioma.com reports.

The Department of Hawaiian Homelands began removing the wasteand disposing of it properly and safely on July 16, 2009.

Students from Leeward Community College and their instructorsare outraged by the dump. Lucy Gay of Leeward Community Collegesays, "We're sick and tired of having people take advantage ofour community."

According to Carroll Cox of Envirowatch, the site of the illegaldumping grounds is owned by the state, and has a locked gate.Despite the "No Trespassing" sign at the site, it appears thatthe area has been used for several years to dispose of hazardouswaste.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Dumped at Heighington Countryside----------------------------------------------------------------Corrugated sheets of asbestos were dumped and left out in theopen on a county path near Heighington, County Durham, England,the Darlington & Stockton Times reports.

The sheets were disposed of by Darlington Borough Council, butHeighington councilor Gerald Lee has appealed for anyone whoknows anything about the incident to come forward.

Councilor Lee said, "Fly tipping not only kills animals. It alsocosts the English tax payer millions of pounds to remove thetons of waste dumped every day. It also leaves our beautifultowns and countryside unsightly."

A spokeswoman for the council said the sheets were cleared assoon as Councilor Lee informed them of the situation.

The oil rig, located at Lascelles Wharf in Geelong, Australia,is operated by Maersk Drilling Services A/S. The 30,000-ton rig,Kan Tan IV, is undergoing a multi-million dollar, six-weekrefit, according to WorkSafe Victoria.

Dieter Vetter, a former worker and elected health and safetyofficer on the rig, says that asbestos had posed danger toworkers refurbishing the rig. He alleges he was squeezed out ofhis position because he raised concerns about safety.

State union officials say that the rig's owners were pushinghard to meet a deadline to guide the rig back through shippingchannels into Bass Strait and have accused the company of nottaking proper precautions.

Maersk Drilling says that asbestos had been found and dealt within pipe gaskets and an exhaust system on the rig.

Jakob Diemer, the Company's senior general manager ofengineering, said an asbestos audit carried out on the rig inTrinidad by an Australian company had issued an all-clear. Hesays that while finding the asbestos had been frustrating, theCompany had gone to extra lengths to ensure safety.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dispute on "Dysfunctional Database" Settled----------------------------------------------------------------Jeffrey Varas, Esq., of Hazelhurst, Miss., and Marcy Croft,Esq., of Jackson, Miss., on July 13, 2009, advised DistrictJudge Eduardo Robreno that they met and resolved issuesconcerning a "dysfunctional database" in asbestos litigation,The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Mr. Varas, who charged that defendants in national asbestoslitigation generated false allegations against his clients froma dysfunctional database, withdrew the charge.

Mr. Varas withdrew a July 6, 2009 motion for sanctions and Ms.Croft withdrew a motion to dismiss claims of Mr. Varas' clients.They wrote that they would provide the court with a list ofplaintiffs whose claims would be dismissed, transferred tobankruptcy dockets or proceeded upon.

Judge Robreno presides over pretrial proceedings in asbestossuits from around the nation by appointment of the U.S. JudicialPanel on Multi District Litigation.

In 2008, Judge Robreno ordered any plaintiff suing more than onedefendant to sever the suit and state a specific claim againsteach defendant. Asbestos lawyers began settling and droppingcases at a phenomenal rate.

In May 2009, Judge Robreno reported resolution of more than500,000 claims in four months.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ryder's Wife's Death Due to Hazard Exposure----------------------------------------------------------------Trevor Ryder, of Welwyn Garden City, England, says that thedeath of his wife Maureen was due to second-hand exposure toasbestos, due to his work with Norton Abrasives, Asbestos.comreports.

Mr. Ryder worked for the Company from 1963 through 1985 and saidhe was unknowingly exposed to asbestos dust on the job. Uponreturning home at the end of the workday, he recalls his wifebrushing the dust off his clothing.

Mr. Ryder said, "She would brush the dust from my clothes everyevening and then hand wash them ready for the next day." Thisresulted in the secondhand exposure to asbestos he believes ledto his wife's mesothelioma diagnosis.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oliver to Give GBP1T for Every Case Settled----------------------------------------------------------------Chester, England-based solicitors Oliver and Co promised todonate GBP1,000 to MacMillan Cancer Support and British LungFoundation for every asbestos case they settle in court, theChester Chronicle reports.

Oliver and Co has agreed to donate funds to the charity of theirclient's choice after recovering millions of pounds in damagesin recent years.

Partner Craig Howell said, "We work closely with both charitiesbecause they provide great support in all aspects of care to ourclients who find themselves facing the most difficult time. Wesee how hard they work and want to give something back to theseworthy causes."

Clients who suffer from asbestosis and asbestos-related lungcancer have often developed the illnesses after coming intocontact with asbestos in their place of work.

Oliver and Co recently settled a case for a man who was exposedto asbestos while working in industry in the South East morethan 30 years ago.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Discovered in Sumas River in Wash.----------------------------------------------------------------According to samples recently collected by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, naturally-occurring asbestoshas been carried downstream of Swift Creek and along the banksof the Sumas River in the State of Washington, according to anEPA press release dated July 20, 2009.

The asbestos comes from a landslide on Sumas Mountain thatdeposits asbestos-laden sediment into Swift Creek, the focus ofprevious health and environmental studies.

The EPA's sampling revealed asbestos and several metals inwater, bank sediments, and recent flood deposits in WhatcomCounty, north of Swift Creek, and approaching the CanadianBorder. EPA has shared the study results with local propertyowners, the local and state health departments, the WashingtonDepartment of Ecology, and officials in Canada where the SumasRiver continues northward.

Dan Opalski, Director of EPA's Superfund Cleanup Office inSeattle, said "These asbestos levels deserve close attention.The new data will enable agencies to make important healthrecommendations so local families make informed decisions toprotect themselves."

The samples taken from the Sumas riverbank showed higherconcentrations of asbestos than previous samples of Swift Creekdredged material. Concentrations ranged up to 27 percentasbestos along the Sumas riverbank.

The Whatcom County Health Department and Washington Departmentof Health have sent an advisory to residents and property ownersalong the Sumas River. The advisory outlines measures people cantake to limit their exposure to asbestos in water, sediment andflood deposits.

Agencies including Whatcom County Health Department and WhatcomCounty Public Works, state departments of Health, Ecology, andLabor and Industries, and federal Army Corps of Engineers,Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and EPA arecoordinating resources and information to address this problemfor both the near term and long term.

Engineering options, including building a structure that wouldcontrol sediment near the landslide, are being considered. Thesituation may also call for changes to local land use planning.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cork City Sues Bakery for Asbestos Breaches----------------------------------------------------------------The city of Cork, Ireland, initiated legal action against theowners of the former Keating's Bakery, on Tramore Road, forallowing material including asbestos to be stored in it, theIrish Examiner reports.

Councilor Mary Shields questioned city manager Joe Gavin on theissue at the last council meeting. Mr. Gavin said the legalaction was being taken under Section 14 and Section 32 of the1996 Waste Management Act.

Section 14 allows a local authority take action where there maybe a risk of environmental pollution arising from the carryingon of an activity at a certain premises. Section 32 deals withthe collection and movement of waste.

The original bakery firm traded for many years in Cork city, andmoved from Coburg Street in the 1970s to Tramore Road, takingover a former shoe factory.

The business went into receivership in 1987, and Keating'sbakeries in Kanturk invested and it ran again with Fitzgeraldfamily involvement up to 1997 when production ceased. The 1.7-acre site has had a long and complex planning history since.

The Keating family applied to develop residential projects onthe site, but one was refused by An Bord Pleanala followingthird party appeals in 2003, while a subsequent proposal in 2005was withdrawn just before Christmas. The site was sold soonafterwards to Frinailla Developments, which in turn lodged plansto develop the site.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Waseca Library Renovation Estimated at $47T----------------------------------------------------------------The renovation and removal of asbestos at the Waseca-LeSueurRegional Library in Waseca, Minn., is estimated at US$47,000, inwhich the City of Waseca is covering the cost of the project,the Waseca County News reports.

Starting July 30, 2009 and running through Aug. 23, 2009, theWaseca-LeSueur Regional Library will be closed for asbestosremoval and renovation.

Along with the removal of asbestos tiles, the project will alsosee new carpeting installed in the library.

In the meantime, library director Theresa Meadows encourageseveryone looking to get some summer reading material to comeover to the library so they have plenty to read while they areclosed.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $450T Needed to Replace Water Lines in Ore.----------------------------------------------------------------An issue in need of funding is a US$450,000 project to replacean aging asbestos cement water line in Eagle Point, Ore.,Mesothelioma.com reports.

The pipes, made from cement that contains asbestos, are sixinches in diameter. The funding would upgrade the water line tonew materials, and expand the size to 12 inches in diameter.

City officials in Eagle Point hope that if they receive federalstimulus money they will be able to update the city's watersystem, part of which is run through asbestos-laden cementpipes.

City officials are hoping to use the money to pay off a loan ofnearly US$3 million, which was used to retrofit a four milliongallon tank. The tank would effectively double the city's watercapacity.

According to city administrator David Hussell, if the cityreceives the federal funds, they can afford to pay off the 40year loan, and then tackle other water-related projects.

Mr. Ward was exposed to asbestos while working in hospitals inWakefield between 1964 and 1972 and has cancer of the lunglining. He was suing Yorkshire and Humber Strategic HealthAuthority. However, the settled before the case got to court.

Mr. Ward, a plumber, said he had never been warned of the dangerasbestos posed to his health. He said, "We just smashed off theasbestos and carried on working."

Dave Prentis, general secretary of the union Unison, said, "Alanis one of a growing number of workers whose health has beenfatally damaged just through going to work.

"Employers have to face up to their responsibilities to makesure they don't put their workers at risk of injury or death."

A spokesperson for NHS Yorkshire and the Humber said: "Mr.Ward's claim, which dates back to 1964, relates to a predecessorNHS organization. When Mr. Ward's claim was presented, weinvestigated his allegations and on the advice of our solicitorsadmitted liability."

Contractors have been erecting a canvas enclosure around thebridge to ensure that the asbestos remains contained during theremoval process.

Michael R. Flick, a Region 7 spokesman for the state Departmentof Transportation, said the removal process will take about fourweeks, after which crews will begin taking apart the bridge.

Single-lane alternating traffic will continue on the bridge asthe asbestos is removed. Once deconstruction of the bridgebegins, a temporary bridge will bypass the construction site,running parallel with the stone bridge along the eastern side.It also will support single-lane traffic.

Slate Hill also has addressed safety issues related to emergencyservices, by rigging the traffic signals with a device thatallows firefighters to stop traffic when necessary.

The US$5.5 million project is expected to be completed byNovember 2009.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Winona Memorial Closed July 15 Over Hazards----------------------------------------------------------------Workers of Indianapolis, Ind., on July 15, 2009, boarded up andsealed off the old Winona Memorial Hospital over asbestos andsafety concerns, the Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Centerreports.

The building has been vacant since 2004, when the hospital wentbankrupt. In 2008, the facility was declared a hazard to publichealth.

The property is owned by the city, but all efforts to secure thebuilding against unauthorized entry have been unsuccessful.Despite signs that warn of the presence of asbestos, "NoTrespassing" signs were nowhere to be seen.

City workers have now sealed up the windows and doors, and thelocal police will be watching the property closely. CaptainRobert Holt said, "I've assigned an officer to check thebuilding regularly to ensure that it isn't open to someone whois just wandering in."

The work was one of several asbestos-abatement projects to becompleted during the summer within Kanawha County schools. Asnoted in a report, 85,000 square feet of space total will be thefocus of the projects.

Maintenance director of the county, Terry Hollandsworth, said,"It's mostly floor tiles, and we do a little bit of ceiling workas well. And we're removing the asbestos chalkboards while we'rethere, too."

Mr. Hollandsworth also stated of the Bridgewater project, "Ican't tell you exactly what we're doing right now atBridgeview." However, it is said to be one of the smallerassignments.

Mr. Hollandsworth further stated, "We hire contractors to comein and do the asbestos abatement, and they have to be licensedand certified. Asbestos abatement is heavily regulated."

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BAVSG Seeks Probes for Schools in Bradford----------------------------------------------------------------The Bradford Asbestos Victim Support Group is calling fordistrict-wide checks on the management and cleanup of asbestosin schools across Bradford, England, the Telegraph & Argusreports.

BAVSG wants to see a comprehensive audit of schools to find outwhether asbestos is being safely managed and is calling for theremoval of the lethal material. The group has backed nationalplans to carry out independent tests for asbestos.

MPs, leaders of the teaching unions and families of teachers,who died of asbestos-related diseases, have arranged tests on100 schools across the country.

Jane Howie, a development worker for BAVSG said, "There isevidence that often the standard of asbestos management, inschools all over the country, was not satisfactory and verydangerous. We are very concerned about the levels of asbestosthe children of the Bradford district are being exposed to andwe need to have a comprehensive audit of all the schools inBradford."

Six teaching unions have backed the need for more checks and theBradford Area Safety Reps Association is planning to look at themanagement of asbestos in schools.

Earlier in 2009, the Telegraph & Argus revealed that 500 publicbuildings, including more than 200 schools, had been found tocontain asbestos.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Forces Closure of Library in Glasgow----------------------------------------------------------------Asbestos was found at the Govanhill and Crosshill Public Libraryin Glasgow, Scotland, forcing library bosses to close thebuilding until 2010, the Evening Times reports.

The library has moved into Govanhill Neighbourhood Centre inDaisy Street until repairs are completed. In June 2009, thelibrary was closed when plaster crashed through a false ceilinginto the children's section. It was the second time in fiveyears the Victorian building has been shut for repairs.

Staff from City Building had thought the library would have tostay closed for a week. However, a detailed inspection found theproblem was worse than expected. As a result, Culture and SportGlasgow, which runs the city's libraries, announced the buildingwould shut for 12 weeks.

Now, it has now been revealed that workmen have discoveredasbestos in the ceiling meaning specialist contractors will haveto be called in.

A Culture and Sport spokesman said, "Libraries staff have pulledout all the stops to set up a temporary home at the GovanhillNeighbourhood Centre, thus maintaining a facility in the heartof the community."

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling in Darrah Claim----------------------------------------------------------------The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, JeffersonCounty, affirmed the judgment of the Jefferson County Court ofCommon Pleas, which granted Duane Darrah's motion in an asbestoscase filed against various defendants.

The allegations included negligence, negligent installation,strict liability, breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment,and conspiracy. The particular ruling at issue in this appealgranted a motion filed by the plaintiffs requesting adeclaration that changes in R.C. Chapter 2307 that becameeffective after the filing of this lawsuit should not be appliedretroactively.

Defendants-appellants, A-Best Products Co. and other defendantsappealed the trial court's decisions, allowing plaintiffs-appellees' (Charles James, et al.) claims of asbestos-relatedinjuries to move forward based on its determination that eachappellee had submitted sufficient evidence to establish a prima-facie case in compliance with the requirements of R.C. 2307.

Federal Insurance Co. filed a declaratory judgment action in theCircuit Court of Cook County against Binney & Smith, Inc.,seeking a declaration that it did not owe a duty to defend orindemnify Binney in connection with a class action lawsuit filedagainst Binney in 2000.

On May 23, 2000, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported findingasbestos in three major brands of crayons, including the Crayolabrand crayons manufactured by Binney. The asbestos was believedto be found in the talc used by crayon manufacturers as abinding agent.

In June 2000, Steven Schwab, individually and as a parent andguardian of Anne Elise Schwab, filed a national class actioncomplaint against Binney in the Chancery Division of the CircuitCourt of Cook County, Ill. The putative class consisted of allindividuals who ever purchased Binney's Crayola brand crayons.

The class plaintiffs alleged test results showed the presence ofasbestos fibers. The class plaintiffs in the Schwab actionbrought three causes of action against Binney: breach of impliedwarranty of merchantability, violation of the Illinois' ConsumerFraud Act and Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and breachof express warranty. The damages sought had to do with thepurchase price of the crayons.

Between 1969 and 1996, Federal issued Binney comprehensivegeneral liability insurance policies. Three of the policiesprovided Binney with broad defense and indemnity coverageagainst claims arising out of "advertising injury." The limitfor advertising injury coverage under each of the policies wasUS$500,000.

Six months after the Schwab action was filed, Binney and theclass plaintiffs reached a settlement. On June 15, 2001, theCook County Chancery Court approved the settlement afterconducting a fairness hearing.

On Sept. 19, 2000, Federal filed a complaint for declaratoryjudgment, seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend orindemnify Binney in the Schwab action.

Binney filed an answer and counterclaim, alleging breach ofcontract against Federal in connection with the Schwab actionand three similar putative class actions. Binney also filed athird party complaint against Royal Insurance Company ofAmerica, seeking defense and indemnification for the Schwabaction and two other asbestos-related lawsuits.

Binney's third party complaint was dismissed after it enteredinto a confidential settlement with Royal. Binney sought thefull amount of its Schwab-related settlement costs andprejudgment interest at the rate of five percent from Federal.

Following a bench trial, the trial court found in Binney'sfavor. The trial court denied Binney's request for prejudgmentinterest. Federal appealed. Binney cross-appealed.

The Appellate Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, andremanded the cause for proceedings consistent with its opinion.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court to Reverse Ruling in Nationwide Claim----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, will reverse theruling of the U.S. District Court for the Western District ofPennsylvania, in a case involving asbestos styled NationwideMutual Fire Insurance Company, Appellant v. George V. Hamilton,Inc., Appellee.

Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company appealed the order ofthe District Court granting George V. Hamilton, Inc. summaryjudgment and dismissing Nationwide's motion to compelarbitration.

Nationwide issued a single policy of liability insurance toHamilton, which provided Hamilton with coverage from Jan. 30,1985 to Jan. 30, 1986. During the policy period, Hamilton, aninstaller of commercial and industrial insulation, receivedclaims for asbestos-related injuries allegedly caused byproducts it had installed.

In 1992, Hamilton and Nationwide, along with other carriers,including Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association InsuranceCompany (PMA), entered into an Interim Claim Handling andSettlement Agreement.

Nationwide participated in the Settlement Agreement until early1996, when it claimed to have exhausted its policy limits andprovided proof of exhaustion to both Hamilton and its fellowcarriers.

On Jan. 5, 2005, PMA filed a complaint in the Court of CommonPleas of Allegheny County, Pa., seeking a declaratory judgmentagainst Hamilton and several insurers other than Nationwide.

On May 20, 2007, the Court of Common Pleas issued an ordersustaining PMA's objections. On May 30, 2007, Hamilton respondedby sending to Nationwide and the other Settlement Agreementsignatories notice of its intent to withdraw from the Agreement.

The Court of Common Pleas, on June 22, 2007, granted Hamilton'smotion to vacate and overruled PMA's objections to thecounterclaims.

On Dec. 7, 2005, a second Hamilton insurer, ACE Property &Casualty Co., though it was not a party to the SettlementAgreement, also filed an action against Hamilton and otherinsurers seeking declaratory relief regarding its duty to defendand indemnify Hamilton. Again, Nationwide was not made a party.

The court in Philadelphia transferred the case to the Court ofCommon Pleas in Allegheny County on July 25, 2006. The ACEaction has since been coordinated with the PMA Action and bothcases remain pending.

On June 7, 2007, a co-insurer defendant in the ACE Action fileda third-party complaint against Nationwide, which filed itsanswer to the third-party complaint on Aug. 10, 2007. On Sept.28, 2007, Hamilton filed an answer, new matter counterclaim andcrossclaims.

However, under the Settlement Agreement, Nationwide servedHamilton with an arbitration demand on April 1, 2008. Hamiltondenied the demand, and Nationwide then filed this action in theU.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania tocompel arbitration. Hamilton moved to dismiss or for summaryjudgment and, on Nov. 8, 2008, the District Court granted thesummary judgment motion.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Langone's Claim v. Beloit City Filed July 6----------------------------------------------------------------Dan Langone, a business owner, filed a lawsuit involvingasbestos and environmental matters against the City of Beloit,Wis., on July 6, 2009 in the Rock County Circuit Court, theBeloit Daily News reports.

Mr. Langone assumed the City completed its contractualresponsibilities before selling him property. Eleven yearslater, he sued the municipality for allegedly failing to fixenvironmental hazards.

Mr. Langone, president of Belcoat Corporation, hired a companyto inspect his property at 1515 Yates Ave., earlier in 2009.After spending 10 hours collecting 70 samples, the company'sdetermined the building's roofs, windows, steam pipes and waterpipes contained asbestos and needed to be removed and replacedat an estimated cost of US$750,000.

City Attorney Tom Casper, Esq., confirmed the City received thepaperwork. City Manager Larry Arft confirmed the City'srelationship with Belcoat, an industrial warehouse.

Mr. Langone purchased the property, formerly the Department ofPublic Works, in 1998 with an agreement that the City wouldcorrect all environmental hazards, he said. He had no reason toquestion whether the work had been completed until he sought todemolish a wing last October 2008.

The Department of Natural Resources asked for the building'senvironmental certificate before the razing. Mr. Langone foundnone, leading him to believe the work promised to him had notbeen done.

In November 2008, the City sent a contractor to the site whoconfirmed the presence of asbestos. However, Mr. Langone said,the City told him it could not pay for the work under the 2008budget and that the project would be bid out in 2009.

A survey was taken of the property early in 2009, but Mr.Langone would not let the City proceed with improvements once helearned it planned to only address a portion of what hisinspector found. After trying to contact the City further aboutthe issue, Mr. Langone decided going to court was the next step.

Mr. Casper said the city has about 20 days since the case wasfiled to respond.

The asbestos abatement has stalled his plan of selling aboutUS$80,000 worth of brick and wood from the wing he wanted todemolish. With it, Mr. Langone's ability to financially survivefor 12 to 18 months before having to find new tenants hasdisappeared.

Mr. Langone said, "My attorneys have advised me not to lease outspace to anyone based on the liability I might face. I'm indefault of my loan because I can't generate any money. It putsat risk my mortgage and second mortgage. It's basicallydestroying me."

Mr. Citro, who worked for nine years at the Bakery, also allegedthat he developed a serious medical condition as a result.

Mr. Citro filed a petition for discovery, asking Kraft to turnover records concerning asbestos-containing materials or anyasbestos removal that occurred between 1950 and 1979 at Kraft'sNabisco north bakery in Chicago.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus Dispute on CAD175,280 Bill Ongoing----------------------------------------------------------------The City of Prince George, in British Columbia, Canada, and theprior owners of the Columbus Hotel are still in dispute over whoshould pay a CAD175,280 bill for demolition of the building lastSeptember 2008, a total that would have been lower if not forthe asbestos found in the structure, the Prince George Citizenreports.

When the City sought bids on the job, bidders were asked not toprovide an estimate for the cost of removing hazardous material,just the basic effort to level the building.

Western Thermal Contractors won the contract with a low bid ofCAD46,800. However, by the time the work was done, the companyhad earned more than three and a half times as much.

Scott Bone, city supply and services manager, says that bids inthose cases are for basic demolition only may be surprising, butthere are good reasons for the approach.

They begin with the fact that no one knows how much hazardousmaterial needs to be removed until one has entered the building,and one cannot enter until the building has been made safe, andthat cannot occur until the demolition starts.

After that, the contractor earns additional money to remove thematerial, but Mr. Bone stressed the amount is based on how muchwas bid to win the contract.

OSHA proposed total fines of US$104,200 against Concord Steam inconnection with a Jan. 22, 2009 fire in which a worker wasinjured.

In the incident, pressurized oil ignited after leaking from aboiler, OSHA said. A subsequent investigation resulted in 73allegations of willful, serious and other than seriousviolations of safety standards. OSHA also identified variouschemical, electrical, mechanical, asbestos and other fire-related hazards in the plant.

Aside from the asbestos citation, OSHA also issued 65 seriouscitations with US$79,800 in fines. The Company also faces sevencitations, with US$2,400 in fines, chiefly for inadequate orincomplete injury and illness recording, OSHA said.

Concord Steam was notified of the alleged violations on July 20,2009. The Company has scheduled an informal conference with OSHAfor Aug. 10, 2009. Concord Steam vice president Mark Salzmansaid the Company is still reviewing the citations.

OSHA said its inspection found that the boiler's doors werebulging and cracked and not properly secured against the escapeof embers and fire, posing a fire and explosion hazard.

Rosemarie Ohar, OSHA's area director in Concord, said, "Theconditions found in this plant expose its employees to the risksof fire, explosion, lacerations, crushing injuries, falls,hazardous chemicals, electrocution, suffocation, lung diseaseand being unable to promptly exit the plant in a fire or otheremergency."

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chilwell Resident's Death Linked to Hazards----------------------------------------------------------------An inquest heard that the death of 68-year-old Edward Clark, ofWestbury Close, Chilwell, England, was linked to workplaceexposure to asbestos, the Evening Post reports.

Mr. Clarke died at Nottingham's City Hospital on July 13, 2009.He suffered from mesothelioma.

Mr. Clarke previously worked as a brake drum cleaner, whichexposed him to asbestos dust.

The inquest, at Nottingham Coroner's Court, was opened andadjourned until a later date.

Sunshine Environmental Services of Waterville, N.Y., is thelowest bidder for the project.

Contracts are expected to be awarded to apparent low biddersfollowing the regular review and approval process via the stateComptroller's Office.

A total of 18 firms bid on the Central New York PsychiatricCenter project, which involves a "contract to abate asbestoscontaining pipe insulation in the basement of Building No. 39,"according to a state announcement.

Sunshine was the primary contractor for the asbestos removal anddemolition at the former Rome Free Academy that was completed in2008, receiving over US$2 million in work for the project thatstill faces some complications.

Sunshine is involved in legal disputes with the Rome schooldistrict involving additional payment claims for services on theproject, while the Environmental Protection Agency has a pendingcomplaint against the school district and Sunshine.

The Central New York Psychiatric Center work was one of sixcontracts statewide for which the state Office of GeneralServices announced low bidders. The bids represented more thanUS$8 million in new construction involving sites in sixcounties.

A revised legislation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act,which was deliberated in a Cabinet meeting on July 21, 2009,will update safe work measures and procedures to minimize thepotential hazards of asbestos.

Building owners and officials will be required to hiredemolition experts to tear down structures if the asbestos usedin the construction materials is more than one percent of thetotal within a floor space of 50 square meters or larger.

In April 2009, the government confirmed that asbestos was foundnear the former Samsung Group headquarters in central Seoul. Thelatest discovery at the site of the Samsung building raised theneed for tighter regulations overseeing construction workprocedure, as many of the country's older buildings facingrenovation have been built with slate and heat insulators madeout of asbestos.

Aside from setting stricter standards on construction sites, therevision also details the qualifications required to be alicensed asbestos inspection agency and reasons a license can berevoked.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hampshire Locals Still Waiting for Payout----------------------------------------------------------------Thousands of people in Hampshire, England, who suffer fromvarious asbestos-related conditions, will have to wait a fewmore months to hear if they will get compensation,ThisIsHampshire.net reports.

Jack Straw, the Secretary of State for Justice, who was expectedto announce a final decision on July 22, 2009, told the Commonshe would instead give "further consideration" to the issuebefore making a statement in autumn.

Those diagnosed with pleural plaques had hoped Mr. Straw wouldagree to meet their requests for payments following a two-yearcampaign. Their battle began when a House of Lords decisionremoved their right to compensation which had existed for 20years.

The Ministry of Justice was expected to announce whether itwould reverse that landmark judgment following a consultationheld on the issue last summer.

The Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians (UCATT)had said earlier it believed the Government would propose to payGBP5,000 to the 6,500 pleural plaques victims whose cases are onhold.

The summer recess, which begins on July 22, 2009, runs untilOct. 9, 2009.

Campaigners, seeking between GBP5,000 and GBP15,000 compensationfor victims, estimate that thousands of people across Hampshireare affected by pleural plaques.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dunfermline Local Gets Payout for Injuries----------------------------------------------------------------Andrew Young, a 60-year-old former shipyard worker fromDunfermline, Scotland, received an undisclosed amount ofcompensation for his asbestos-related injuries, The Courierreports.

Mr. Young's former employers, the Ministry of Defence and theCoal Board, both admitted negligently exposing him to asbestos.However, they argued that his breathing difficulties were causedby an unrelated condition called cryptogenic fibrosingalveolitis (CFA).

The Court of Session accepted medical evidence that Mr. Youngwould already be dead if he had CFA (its victims have a lifeexpectancy of less than five years) and awarded him undisclosedcompensation.

Bruce Shields, of Thompsons Solicitors, the firm whichrepresented Mr. Young, said the case had important implicationsfor other asbestosis sufferers where there are conflictingopinions from medical experts.

During his career, Mr. Young spent a decade as a fitter atRosyth dockyard working on the refit of naval vessels, where hehad frequent contact with dust from asbestos lagging on pipesbeing stripped and renewed. He later worked at Comrie Collieryin Fife as a fitter and was exposed to more asbestos dustworking on steam boilers and valves.

Five years ago, Mr. Young noticed he was becoming increasinglyshort of breath and doctors at Queen Margaret Hospital foundevidence of lung disease, attributing it to his formeremployment.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MoD Notes GBP770T Paid to Civilian in 2008----------------------------------------------------------------New figures have shown that, in 2008, the largest amount paid bythe Ministry of Defence to a British civilian was GBP770,000 toan elderly victim of asbestos poisoning from working in aPortsmouth, England, naval shipyard, the Telegraph reports.

In 2008, civil compensation claims have cost the MoD GBP84million.

The highest single claim was paid to a Royal Navy surgeon whoreceived GBP3.6 million for severe spinal injuries following ahelicopter crash during an exercise in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Vicknair and 14 other plaintiffs appealed from the judgmentsevering them from two lawsuits and dismissing without prejudiceon the ground of forum non conveniens their asbestos-relatedproduct liability action against Phelps Dodge Industries, Inc.,and numerous other defendants.

Although the defendants cross-appealed, they abandoned thecross-appeal by failing to raise any cross-appeal issues intheir brief or argument.

The Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in grantingthe motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens,because the defendants had not shown an adequate alternativeforum existed in another jurisdiction to entertain theplaintiffs' claims.

The judgment was reversed and remanded.

David C. Thompson, Esq., of David C. Thompson, P.C. in GrandForks, N.D., and Jeanette Boechler, Esq., of Boechler Law Firmin Fargo, N.D., represented the plaintiffs and appellants.

PWA, a corporation that was involuntarily dissolved underMinnesota law in 1997, is a defendant in the asbestoslitigation. The respondents in this appeal are the plaintiffs inthat litigation. One of the insurance companies defending PWA'sinterests in the asbestos litigation is TIG Insurance Company.

At issue was whether respondents may depose an attorney who, aspart of PWA's defense strategy in the asbestos litigation,assisted PWA in obtaining a certificate of voluntary dissolutionfrom the Minnesota Secretary of State.

The district court denied PWA's motion for a protective order,and PWA petitioned the court of appeals for a writ ofprohibition and for discretionary review. The court of appealsdenied both petitions.

U.S. District Judge Jeanne E. Scott entered judgment in Case No.No. 06-3238 on July 8, 2009.

This matter came before the Court on cross motions for summaryjudgment. Laborers' Local 477's Motion for Summary Judgment asto Parkland's Complaint to Vacate the Arbitration Award and asto Laborer's Local 477's Counterclaim to Confirm the ArbitrationAward (Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment); Motion forSummary Judgment (Parkland's Motion for Summary Judgment).

In June 2007, Laborers' International Union of North America,Laborers' Local 477 filed a Counterclaim, seeking confirmationof the award.

Parkland's request to vacate the arbitration award was deniedand the Union's request for confirmation of the award wasallowed.

Parkland provides asbestos abatement and other services.Parkland typically employs three to four full-time employees.The Union is a labor organization with its principal place ofbusiness in Springfield, Ill.

The parties disputed whether a collective bargaining agreementbetween them existed covering the work upon which the July 18,2006 arbitration award was based.

As part of the 1986 reorganization plan of the Johns-ManvilleCorporation, an asbestos supplier and manufacturer of asbestos-containing products, the Bankruptcy Court approved a settlementproviding that Manville's insurers, including The TravelersIndemnity Company and related companies, would contribute to thecorpus of the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust, andreleasing those insurers from any "Policy Claims," which werechanneled to the Trust.

The settlement agreement and reorganization plan were approvedby the Bankruptcy Court (1986 Orders) and were affirmed by theDistrict Court and the Second Circuit. Over a decade later,plaintiffs began filing asbestos actions against Travelers instate courts (Direct Actions), often seeking to recover fromTravelers not for Manville's wrongdoing but for Travelers' ownalleged violations of state consumer-protection statutes or ofcommon law duties.

Invoking the 1986 Orders, Travelers asked the BankruptcyCourt to enjoin 26 Direct Actions. Ultimately, a settlement wasreached, in which Travelers agreed to make payments tocompensate the Direct Action claimants, contingent on thecourt's order clarifying that the Direct Actions were, andremained, prohibited by the 1986 Orders.

The court made extensive factual findings, concluding thatTravelers derived its knowledge of asbestos from its insurancerelationship with Manville and that the Direct Actions are basedon acts or omissions by Travelers arising from or related to theinsurance policies.

It then approved the settlement and entered an order (ClarifyingOrder), which provided that the 1986 Orders barred the pendingDirect Actions and various other claims. Objectors to thesettlement appealed.

The District Court affirmed, but the Second Circuit reversed.Agreeing that the Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction to interpretand enforce the 1986 Orders, the Circuit nevertheless held thatthe Bankruptcy Court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the DirectActions because those actions sought not to recover based onManville's conduct, but to recover directly from Travelers forits own conduct. The judgment was reversed and remanded.

U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton entered judgment in CaseNo. C06-5190RBL on June 12, 2009.

Mr. Velto is a resident of Washington and an employee of DraegerMedical. Draeger Medical was hired by Century City DoctorsHospital, LLC (CCDH) to build the Century City Doctor's Hospitalin California. CCDH is a limited partnership and defendant Salusis the managing member of that partnership.

Draeger Medical placed Mr. Velto in charge of building theCentury City Doctor's Hospital. Mr. Velto originally worked onthe Hospital from an on site office. He claimed he sufferedadverse health consequences resulting from his exposure toexcessive heat, smoke and fume-clogged air, and asbestos dustwhile working on site.

Mr. Velto allegedly asked his employer multiple times to movehim and his staff, or provide filtration and air conditioningsystems for the office. Mr. Velto claimed these concerns werenot sufficiently addressed until late into the project.

Mr. Velto then filed a worker's compensation claim on April 29,2005 for physical symptoms he was experiencing as a result ofworking on site. Around April 2005, his treating physicianrecommended he change occupations and refrain from returning tothe Hospital worksite.

Mr. Velto lived and maintained a home office in Vancouver, Wash.While working at home, he participated in numerous conferencecalls with CCDH management. He claimed that CCDH verballyharassed him on the telephone, and this harassment constitutedthe tort of Outrage. He alleged that CCDH demanded that hereturn to the unsafe worksite, and blamed him for delays in theinstallation of an information and monitoring system. DraegerMedical then terminated Mr. Velto on Oct. 6, 2005, citingcommunication issues.

Mr. Velto brought this suit against Draeger Medical, Salus, andCCDH. He claimed that Salus was responsible for emotionaldistress resulting from this harassment, in addition to thephysical effects of being forced to work on-site.

Salus had not appeared or answered, and had not responded to Mr.Velto's motion. He filed a Motion for Default Judgment on April27, 2009. He sought a Default Judgment of US$85,000 for lostwages, emotional distress and gastrointestinal distressresulting from Salus' actions.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Ongoing v. Lockheed Martin----------------------------------------------------------------Lockheed Martin Corporation is still a defendant in lawsuitsalleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestosintegrated into its premises and certain historical products,according to the Company's quarterly report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2009.

The Company has never mined or produced asbestos and no longerincorporates it in any currently manufactured products.

The Company has been successful in having a substantial numberof these claims dismissed without payment. The remainingresolved claims have settled for amounts that are not materialindividually or in the aggregate. Most of the asbestos-relatedclaims have been covered by insurance or other forms ofindemnity.

Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin Corporation is a globalsecurity company that researches, designs, develops,manufactures, integrates, and sustains advanced technologysystems and products. The Company provides management,engineering, technical, scientific, logistic, and informationservices.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cohen Claim Filed Against Nashua on March 3----------------------------------------------------------------Nashua Corporation, on March 3, 2009, was served papers on March3, 2009 relative to the asbestos action styled Shlomo Cohen andRoni Cohen vs. American Standard, Inc. et al. (including NashuaCorporation), according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2009.

There are 53 defendants in this case. The suit alleges that theCompany engaged in the sale and distribution of materials andproducts containing asbestos.

The action claims that Mr. Cohen, for a period of many years,worked with or came in contact with or was exposed to asbestosproducts while working in various shipyards, steel mills,refineries, paper mills, chemical plants, industrial sites andfacilities, construction sites and other facilities or wasexposed to the defendants' products through the normal use ofthese products.

The case alleges Mr. Cohen's exposure to asbestos products hasresulted in his sickness. Subsequently, the Company has learnedthat Mr. Cohen worked in a press room, which used Nashua papersand glue.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Badger Meter Still Has Multi-Party Lawsuits----------------------------------------------------------------Badger Meter, Inc. is still a defendant in multi-claimant/multi-defendant lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result ofexposure to asbestos, manufactured by third parties, andintegrated into or sold with a very limited number of theCompany's products.

No claimant has demonstrated exposure to products manufacturedor sold by the Company and a number of cases have beenvoluntarily dismissed, according to the Company's quarterlyreport filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July22, 2009.

Milwaukee-based Badger Meter, Inc. manufactures and marketsproducts incorporating liquid flow measurement and controltechnologies developed both internally and in conjunction withother technology companies. Company products are used inapplications to measure and control the flow of liquids,primarily water.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 11 Cases Filed During July 13 to 17 in Ill.----------------------------------------------------------------During the week of July 13, 2009 through July 17, 2009, a totalof 11 asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison CountyCircuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

These cases are:

-- (Case No. 09-L-728) Barbara R. Brobst of Pennsylvania claims her deceased husband, Ernest F. Brobst, developed mesothelioma after he served in the U.S. Air Force and after his work as a home remodeler. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mrs. Brobst.

-- (Case No. 09-L-740) Jesse W. and Mollie Clements claim Mr. Clements developed mesothelioma after his work as a furnace installer at Red Boyer, as a carpenter's helper and carpenter, as a missionary and social worker at various private churches, as a missionary and social worker performing home construction and repair work, as a maintenance and carpentry man, as a carpenter for a non- profit center, and as a home remodeler and repairman for his home. Randi L. Gori of Gori, Esq., of Julian and Associates in Alton, Ill., represents the Clements couple. W. Mark Lanier, Esq., Patrick N. Haines, Esq., Angela B. Greenburg, Esq., Sam T. Richard, Esq., Bridget B. Truxillo, Esq., and Lauren H. Ware, Esq., of The Lanier Law Firm in Houston will serve of counsel.

-- (Case No. 09-L-730) Fred L. Hall Sr. and Betty D. Hall of South Carolina claim Mr. Hall developed mesothelioma after serving in the U.S. Navy and after working at the Charleston Naval Shipyard and at the Naval Weapons Station. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mrs. Hall.

-- (Case No. 09-L-738) Curtis and Alice Hines of Indiana claim Mr. Hines developed mesothelioma after his work as a janitor from and as a boatswain's mate. Donald M. Flack, Esq., of Flack Law Office in Wood River, Ill., represents the Hines couple.

-- (Case No. 09-L-729) Mary J. Hultgren of Florida claims her deceased husband, Roy C. Hultgren, developed mesothelioma after his work as a machine operator, carpenter's apprentice, carpenter and contractor. T. Barton French Jr., Esq., and Jackalyn A. Olinger, Esq., of French and Mudd in St. Louis represent Mrs. Hultgren.

-- (Case No. 09-L-731) Wilbert and Joyce Jones of Missouri claim Mr. Jones developed lung cancer after his work as a laborer in Jeanerette, La., as a laborer for Blue Line Chemical Company and Switzer Candy Company, and as a laborer at Independent Packing House and at Anheuser-Busch Brewery. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., represent the Jones couple.

-- (Case No. 09-L-735) Thomas and Virginia Kersting of Missouri allege Mr. Kersting developed mesothelioma after his work as a sheet metal worker. John A. Barnerd, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent the Kerstings.

-- (Case No. 09-L-733) Orville and Sylvia Mueth of Illinois allege Mr. Mueth developed esophageal cancer after his work as a manager, electrician and plumber. Christopher R. Guinn, Esq., and Christopher J. Levy, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent the Mueths.

-- (Case No. 09-L-732) Joshua J. Wise of Illinois claims a deceased man, Eddy Lee Grady, developed lung cancer after his work as a laborer at International Vermiculite Co., as a butcher at Girard Meat Locker, as a carpenter at Gulf, Mobile and Ohio Railroad, as a carpenter at National Homes, as a laborer at Hulcher Train Wrecking, and as a laborer for Springfield Plastics. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mr. Wise.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 7 Actions Filed During July 6-10 in Madison----------------------------------------------------------------During the week of July 6, 2009 through July 10, 2009, a totalof seven new asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in MadisonCounty Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Recordreports.

-- (Case No. 09-L-705) James L. McClain Jr. and Dianne McClain of Mississippi claim Mr. McClain developed mesothelioma after his work as a machinist, as a plumber's helper, and as a laborer, cementer and supervisor. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., represent the McClains.

-- (Case No. 08-L-715) Joseph Zembala of Indiana claims his deceased wife, Bernadette Zembala, developed mesothelioma after she was secondarily exposed to asbestos through her husband, who worked as a millwright. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mr. Zembala.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tax Benefits Not Assured on Hardie Transfer----------------------------------------------------------------James Hardie Industries N.V. says that there can be no guaranteea proposed move to Ireland will deliver tax benefits toshareholders or the Company, The West Australian reports.

In June 2009, the Company announced that it would shift toIreland in order to improve the chances of qualifying for taxbenefits in the United States, where a majority of itsoperations are conducted. The proposed move could cost theCompany as much as AUD71 million.

The Company has said the move would not affect its commitment tocontribute to the asbestos diseases fund, but may reducepayments in the short-term.

These factors could result in adverse reaction from theAustralian government or state and territory governments, aswell as unions and asbestos disease groups, the Company said.

Shareholders will vote on the first stage of the proposal onAug. 21, 2009. If both stages receive approval, the move isexpected to be finalized by the end of January 2010.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Schmidheiny, Cartier Ordered to Stand Trial----------------------------------------------------------------An Italian judge, on July 22, 2009, ordered Stephan Schmidheinyof Switzerland and Jean-Louis de Cartier of Belgium to standtrial for alleged negligence leading to hundreds of deathslinked to asbestos plants, The Associated Press reports.

Prosecutors say Mr. Schmidheiny and Mr. de Cartier were keyshareholders in Eternit N.V. Prosecutors allege the two wereultimately responsible for the death of some 2,000 workers andresidents from asbestos-related diseases. Most of the casesoccurred around an Eternit plant in Casale Monferrato, a townnear Turin, Italy.

Lawyers and prosecutors said Mr. Cartier and Mr. Schmidheiny arecharged with causing an environmental disaster and failing totake proper precautions. Their trial is set to begin Dec. 10,2009 in Turin.

Eternit closed its Italian operation in 1986. However, peoplecontinue to become sick as a result of the contamination,prosecutor Raffaele Guariniello said.

Mr. Guariniello alleged that Eternit spread asbestos fibers overwide areas by allowing powder left over from the production ofroof coverings and pipes to spread in the air. They also soldasbestos locally for the construction of roads and houses, hetold The Associated Press.

Mr. Schmidheiny and Mr. de Cartier do not deny that the deathswere caused by asbestos, but claim they did everything theycould to limit the risks and inform the public, said Astolfo DiAmato, a lawyer for Mr. Schmidheiny.

Mr. Schmidheiny's spokesman, Peter Schuermann, said in an e-mailthat Mr. Schmidheiny "was never the owner of the Italianfactory, but the biggest shareholder of the Swiss Eternit Groupfor just a few years. Before, Italian owners steered the companyand afterward Belgians."

Aside from the dead, some 800 residents and former workers arestill suffering from illnesses including asbestosis andmesothelioma, said Bruno Pesce, the head of a victimsassociation. Up to 50 new cases are diagnosed each year inCasale alone.

Some 3,000 victims and family members have joined in a civillawsuit attached to the criminal proceedings in Turin. Many werein the courtroom on July 22, 2009 and cried and applauded afterthe ruling, Mr. Pesce said.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in 17 Products in South Korea----------------------------------------------------------------The Korean Agency for Technology and Standards and the Ministryof Knowledge, on July 22, 2009, released a list of 17 products(including bicycles, refrigerators, electric ovens, andballoons) in six categories confirmed as containing asbestos,Joong Ang Daily.

The list came from the study of 524 products in 46 categoriessuspected of containing the material. The study was conducted inthree stages between April 2009 and June 2009. Almost allproducts found to contain asbestos have been recalled and bannedby the government.

A Korean-made balloon and refrigerator were confirmed to containasbestos. Bicycles had the largest number of cases amongasbestos-containing products. A total of 11 bicycles were foundto contain asbestos, including bicycles manufactured primarilyin China and bicycles manufactured by Donggrami Utopia, a Koreancompany.

Motorcycle brake pads manufactured by two companies in China andVietnam were also found to contain asbestos. The brake padsentered the country via small manufacturers the government saidit could not identify.

Song Jae-bin, the standards agency's product safety bureaugeneral, said, "From September, asbestos fibers will be bannedfrom all products for children and products that come intocontact with the skin. Asbestos content in all manufacturedgoods will have to be under 0.1 percent."

The government exempted a wallpaper company from the sales banand recall because it said the amount of asbestos found in itsproduct was miniscule.

In addition, the surface of the wallpaper was coated, making itunlikely the material would enter the air, the standards agencysaid.

The Chronicle had reported that Mrs. Devoy sued for a recordGBP1 million in damages over her husband's, Alexander Devoy,death from asbestos disease. (Class Action Reporter, June 19,2009)

Mrs. Devoy told the High Court in London she lost far more thana spouse when Mr. Devoy died from mesothelioma in 2007.

Judge Michael Reddighough said that had Mr. Devoy - a formerchief engineer - lived, he would have shouldered the main burdenof caring for his wife, who needs support due to her Parkinson'sdisease and a painful spinal condition.

The North-East has one of highest death rates in the UnitedKingdom for mesothelioma and many similar claims from people whoworked in shipyards, mines and factories, where asbestos waswidely used, are now going through the courts.

Mrs. Devoy had to give up her career as secretary when she wasdiagnosed with Parkinson's disease 13 years ago. According toher counsel, Christopher Melton QC, Mr. Devoy was his wife'sconstant and devoted companion and carer.

Mrs. Devoy sued shipbuilders, William Doxford Ltd, for whom herhusband worked as a fitter between 1955 and 1959, and StuntbrandLine Ltd, for whose predecessors, Clan Line Steamers Ltd, heworked between 1960 and 1970.

During both periods of employment, Mr. Devoy was exposed toasbestos or asbestos dust and neither defendant contestedliability in the case.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minn. Site Cleanup to Commence on August 24----------------------------------------------------------------Austin, Minn., city engineer Jon Erichson said that theenvironmental portion of the cleanup (mostly asbestos removal)at a fire-damaged site in downtown Austin, Minn., will begin ataround Aug. 24, 2009, Mesothelioma.com reports.

The fire at the Austin site occurred on Jan. 15, 2009.

Mr. Erichson said that the area may finally be clean by October2009.

Demolition at the site would take place after the asbestosremoval is completed. Officials believe that demolition willprobably start around Sept. 7, 2009 and would be completed bythe beginning of October 2009.

Bids for the environmental and demolition work will be acceptedstarting July 28, 2009 and the bids will be awarded by the citycouncil at the beginning of August 2009.

The project will be financed by Maria Leon, who owns the MiaTierra properties that cover most of the area. This is due to alegal settlement.

According to a 2007 report from the Center for PublicEnvironmental Oversight, the boiler house is located in abrownfield site on South Maple Street. The brownfield site wasowned by Keasbey and Mattison and consists of two facilities: aformer asbestos manufacturing factory and the boiler house,which is also contaminated after being used as an asbestosdisposal site.

According to the notice of violation, the DEP investigated thesite on May 29, 2009 and discovered roofing materials were beingremoved. The property owners had not submitted an AsbestosAbatement and Demolition/Renovation Notification Form, violatingthe DEP's Air Pollution Rules and Regulations.

Lale Byers, an environmental trainee in the Montgomery Countyair quality division, issued a notice of violation June 9, 2009to Ronald Hamilton of Hatfield, one of the members of AmblerSmokestack LLC, which owns the property.

Mr. Hamilton was given until June 18, 2009 to submit "anabatement plan that details what [he] will do to assurecompliance with this permit requirement in future projects thatincorporate the removal of regulated asbestos containingmaterials," according to the notice.

Currently, there is partial fencing at the site that does notprevent access to the site.

The boiler house, which had been abandoned for nearly 40 years,came back into the public's attention last August 2008 when Gov.Ed Rendell announced the property would receive a US$4 milliongrant from the state's Redevelopment Assistance Capital Programto help transform the brownfield site into a condominium andoffice complex.

Strategic Realty Investments, Summit Realty Advisors and WestrumDevelopment Co. together planned to remediate the site andcreate 42,500 square feet of office space at the boiler house,with 288 condominiums to be built adjacent.

The construction has been postponed due to current economicconditions.

*********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in eachWednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissionsvia e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuringnews on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of targetasbestos defendants that, according to independent research,collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-relatedliabilities.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited withoutprior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believedto be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact ChristopherBeard at 240/629-3300.